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)

Download PDF
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)

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?