Greater San Diego County Association of Realtors, Inc. v. Sandicor, Inc. et al

Filing 86

ORDER Granting 84 Joint Motion to Amend Scheduling Order. The Court grants plaintiff's request for a sixty (60) day extension of the discovery cut-off date. It is hereby ordered that the renewed discovery cut-off date is 1/19/2018. It is further ordered that a Telephonic Status Conference is set for 1/5/2018 at 10:30 AM before Magistrate Judge Karen S. Crawford. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen S. Crawford on 11/17/2017. (rmc)

1
2

1IL c:." r...
·J·
''
l
L

: '
1

-

t

.>'

,

....

n.-,,;...

1'7 N©V 17 PM 3: 59

3

;

·

'

4

,,

'

.

•

...

I

.... LC

5

1)'�2Tr'"'\J:iT
,� t,, -"/vttNL

Olli'H-T .

6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF
REALTORS, INC.,

ORDER GRANTING JOINT

13
14
15

Case No.: 3:16-cv-00096-MMA-KSC

Plaintiff,

MOTION TO AMEND

v.

SCHEDULING ORDER

SANDICOR INC., et al.,

[Doc. No. 84]
Defendants.

16
17
18
19

Before the Court is the parties' Joint Motion Regarding Proposed Amendments to

20

the Scheduling Order.

21

("SDAR"), requests the Court amend the Scheduling Order to extend the fact discovery

22

cut-off date by sixty (60) days in light of its pending Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint

23

[Doc. No. 79], and not-yet-completed document productions by defendants. [Doc. No. 84,

24

at pp. 4-6]. Defendants oppose, arguing, inter alia, plaintiffs request is a product of neither

25

diligently prosecuting the case, nor adhering to the discovery deadlines identified by the

26

Court. [Id. at pp. 13-17].

27

witnesses for two noticed Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) depositions was in

28

"complete disregard of [SDAR's] discovery obligations." [Id. at p. 17]. For the reasons

[Doc. No. 84].

Plaintiff, San Diego Association of Realtors

Defendants further argue SDAR's decision not to produce

I
3: l 6-cv-00096-MMA-KSC

1

discussed below, the Court GRANTS plaintiff's request to continue the discovery cut-off

2

date by sixty (60) days.

3

DISCUSSION

4

This Court issued an Order resolving a discovery dispute between the parties on

5

September 29, 2017. [Doc. No. 78]. In that Order, the Court granted SDAR leave to file a

6

motion to amend the pleadings because SDAR "clarified that it began to devote resources

7

to create Just Knock in 2014, and not 2009 as previously alleged." [Id. at p. 7]. Consistent

8

with

9

Complaint] is amended in accordance with plaintiff's representations, the production of

10

responsive documents by plaintiff would be limited to entities with relevant information

11

regarding the efforts to create Just Knock, and on a timeline consistent with efforts that

12

allegedly began in 2014, rather than 2009." [Id.].

13

Amend, which has not yet been fully briefed, and thus awaits a ruling from the District

14

Court. [Doc. No. 79].

that acknowledgement, this Court wrote: "[a]ssuming

the [Third Amended

SDAR has filed such a Motion to

15

This Court understands the instant dispute to tum, primarily, on two issues: (1) the

16

allegedly tardy document productions by defendants in response to requests for productions

17

issued by plaintiff; and, (2) inappropriate decisions by plaintiff not to produce witnesses

18

for two duly-noticed, Rule 30(b)(6) depositions. [Doc. No. 84]. For the reasons set forth

19

in this Order, the Court is extending the discovery cut-off date by sixty days. While the

20

pending Motion to Amend does not serve to stay discovery, it is, at the very least, relevant

21

as to how discovery ought to proceed at this time. To the extent there is any incomplete

22

discovery unrelated to the timeline at issue in the pending Motion to Amend, the Court

23

expects such discovery to be completed within the sixty-day extension ordered herein.

24

Defendants noticed a total of five depositions of SDAR witnesses. [Doc. No. 84, at

25

p. 7]. Three of these witnesses, according to SDAR, "are financial-services employees [ ]

26

whose only potential relevance is through their knowledge of SDAR financials."

27

SDAR contends, inter alia, in the Joint Motion that the depositions of the three financial-

28

services employees should be put off until after the District Court rules on the pending

[Id.].

2
3: l 6-cv-00096-MMA-KSC

1

Motion to Amend, as the scope of relevant discovery is, as related to the pertinent time

2

period, currently unsettled. [Doc. No. 84, at pp. 6-7]. This Court agrees. Accordingly, the

3

parties should withhold conducting the depositions of the financial-services employees

4

until Judge Anello rules on the pending Motion to Amend.

5

Any deposition that does not implicate the amended timeline must be taken within

6

the sixty-day extension granted by this Court. This includes, but is not limited to: (1) the

7

depositions of plaintiffs witnesses regarding topics unrelated to any pre-2014 efforts to

8

create Just Knock; and, (2) the nan-financial services employee depositions n oticed by

9

defendants. The sixty-day extension provides adequate time for the parties to exchange

10

any remaining discovery, review the materials, and conduct the depositions on issues not

11

implicated by the pending Motion to Amend.

12

CONCLUSION

13

The Court GRANTS plaintiffs request for a sixty (60) day extension of the

14

discovery cut-off date.

15

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED the renewed discovery cut-off date is January 19, 2018.

16

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a telephonic Status Conference will be held before

17

Judge Crawford on January 5, 2018 at 10:30 AM. Counsel for plaintiff shall initiate the

18

conference by calling Judge Crawford's chambers at the appointed time with all counsel

19

on the line.

20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 17, 2017

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
3: 16-cv-00096-MMA-KSC