Paydar et al v. Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC

Filing 28

ORDER Denying 27 Second Joint Motion to Extend Expert Disclosure Deadline. Signed by Magistrate Judge William V. Gallo on 10/8/19. (mme)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

REZA PAYDAR et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8
9
10
11

Case No.: 19-CV-58-BAS(WVG)
ORDER DENYING SECOND JOINT
MOTION TO EXTEND EXPERT
DISCLOSURE DEADLINE

v.
JAGUAR LAND ROVER NORTH
AMERICA, LLC,

[Doc. No. 27.]

Defendant.

12
13

For the second time, the parties’ jointly move to extend the deadline to exchange

14

expert disclosures under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2). When the Court granted

15

the first request on September 12, 2019, the Court expressly admonished that “[n]o other

16

requests to extend dates to allow the parties to finalize the settlement will be entertained or

17

granted.” (Doc. No. 26.) Yet the parties now seek extension of the same deadline and

18

proffer “client unavailability and a miscommunication between the parties regarding the

19

specifics of a settlement offer to repurchase the subject vehicel [sic]” as supposed good

20

cause. (Doc. No. 27 at 2.) The motion is DENIED not only because the Court previously

21

placed the parties on notice that no other extensions would be granted, but also because the

22

proffered bases for the request fall woefully short of good cause. Additionally, the Court

23

finds the motion is untimely given that it was filed the day before the extended deadline is

24

set to expire.

25
26

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: October 8, 2019

27
28
1
19-CV-58-BAS(WVG)