Keck v. Alibaba.com, Inc.

Filing 309

ORDER DENYING 306 PLAINTIFF'S CORRECTED MOTION TO AMEND CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 5/8/2019. (blflc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/8/2019)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

SAN JOSE DIVISION

7
8

MICHEL KECK,
Plaintiff,

9
v.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Case No. 17-cv-05672-BLF

ALIBABA.COM HONG KONG LTD., et
al.,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
CORRECTED MOTION TO AMEND
CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER
[Re: ECF 306]

Defendants.
13
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s corrected motion to amend case management order

14
15

(“Motion”). Motion, ECF 306. Plaintiff requests to continue the class certification discovery,

16

filing, and hearing date deadlines by approximately four and a half months. Motion at 1.

17

Defendants oppose in full. Opp’n, ECF 307. For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff’s Motion is

18

DENIED.

19
20

I.

LEGAL STANDARD
A party seeking to amend a scheduling order must show “good cause” for such relief. Fed.

21

R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4) (“A schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s

22

consent.”). A “good cause determination focuses primarily on the diligence of the moving party.”

23

Yeager v. Yeager, 2009 WL 1159175, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 29, 2009) (citing Johnson v. Mammoth

24

Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992)). Courts may take into account any resulting

25

prejudice to the opposing party, but “the focus of the [Rule 16(b)] inquiry is upon the moving

26

party’s reasons for seeking modification . . . [i]f that party was not diligent, the inquiry should

27

end.” In re W. States Wholesale Nat. Gas Antitrust Litig., 715 F.3d 716, 737 (9th Cir. 2013) aff’d

28

sub nom. Oneok, Inc. v. Learjet, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 1591 (2015) (quoting Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609).

II.

1

DISCUSSION
The earliest existing class deadline for which modification is sought is September 16,

2
3

2019, Plaintiff’s last day to serve class certification expert reports. See ECF 290 at 4. The last

4

day to file class certification motions is December 20, 2019, and the last day for the Court to hear

5

any such motion is April 2, 2020. See id.
Plaintiff requests to delay these deadlines by four and a half months on the basis that on

6
7

April 22, 2019, Judge van Keulen (the presiding magistrate judge) “ordered the Alibaba

8

Defendants to complete the production of documents relevant to class certification by August 15,

9

2019.” See Motion at 1; see also Discovery Order at 2, ECF 302. Plaintiff argues that her
requested extension is appropriate “because the Alibaba Defendants’ August 15 deadline for

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

producing documents is four-and-a-half months from the March 31 date that the class deadlines

12

are currently tied to.” See Motion at 3. Plaintiff further argues that she requires the extra time “to

13

review tens (or, likely, hundreds) of thousands of documents . . . depose witnesses . . . and serve

14

and collect targeted follow-up written discovery.” See id. Defendants counter that Judge van

15

Keulen’s discovery order at ECF 302 contemplated precisely this issue and set the August 15,

16

2019 production deadline accordingly. See Opp’n at 2. In other words, Defendants argue that

17

Plaintiff has no basis for her request because it contradicts the discovery order and because

18

Plaintiff has not shown that she will be unable to meet the existing deadlines. See id. at 1–2, 4.
The Court agrees with Defendants. Judge van Keulen’s discovery order at ECF 302

19
20

clearly considers the existing class certification deadlines—i.e., “the underlying issue of ensuring

21

the timely production of relevant materials sufficiently in advance of the first class certification

22

deadline on September 16, 2019.” See Discovery Order at 1. Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate

23

why this Court should second guess Judge van Keulen’s ruling. Moreover, Plaintiff has not

24

demonstrated1 that the existing schedule “cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the

25

party seeking the extension.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir.

26

1992) (internal quotation and citation omitted). In sum, Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED.

27
28

On May 8, 2018, Plaintiff filed a “reply” to its Motion. ECF 308. Plaintiff was not permitted a
reply, but in any event, the Court is unpersuaded by any additional arguments presented.
2
1

1
2

III.

ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion at ECF 306 is DENIED.

3
4
5
6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 8, 2019
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3