L.V.Q. v. The GEO Group, Inc., 1:24-cv-00656

Plaintiff L.V.Q. filed a complaint against The GEO Group, Inc. in the Eastern District of California, asserting state law claims.
The court issued an initial scheduling order on October 24, 2024, establishing deadlines for discovery, motions, and trial.
Significant discovery disputes arose, leading to court-ordered resolutions on July 10, 2024, particularly related to document production and ESI.
Both parties jointly requested extensions of all case deadlines, citing ongoing document and ESI production and pending discovery responses.
Defendant's first discovery requests to Plaintiff were not served until August 7, 2025, ten months after discovery opened and shortly before the discovery cutoff.
The Court granted the extension with caution, emphasizing limited good cause due to prior delays and warning against further extensions absent extraordinary circumstances.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether to amend the scheduling order for more discovery time	More time needed as documents and ESI are still being produced and reviewed	More time needed due to ongoing efforts to comply with discovery obligations	Extension granted, but with warning that future extensions require extraordinary circumstances

Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604 (9th Cir. 1992) (diligence is the primary consideration under Rule 16 for modifying scheduling orders)
Zivkovic v. So. Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080 (9th Cir. 2002) (if the moving party was not diligent, the modification should not be granted)