Roush v. San Joaquin Valley College, Inc., 1:21-cv-00556

Plaintiff Jennifer Roush sued San Joaquin Valley College and an individual defendant for gender/pregnancy discrimination and wrongful termination; case removed to federal court in April 2021 and the operative complaint was filed May 2021.
The Court’s scheduling order set an expert discovery cutoff of December 9, 2022 and a pretrial motion deadline of January 16, 2023.
Plaintiff timely noticed depositions of Defendants’ experts for early December 2022; shortly before the cutoff Defendants’ counsel informed Plaintiff the experts were unavailable and could not be reached to confirm dates.
Plaintiff filed an ex parte application to extend expert discovery on December 5, 2022 (denied), then filed a motion to amend the scheduling order on December 7, 2022—both before the December 9 expert cutoff.
Defendants opposed, arguing Plaintiff failed to follow Local Rule 144(d), the extension would disrupt the Court’s calendar, and would prejudice Defendants by forcing additional fees and new defenses.
The Magistrate Judge found Plaintiff acted with due diligence under Rule 16(b), declined to penalize Plaintiff for Defendants’ inability to produce experts, and granted the extension: expert cutoff extended to February 10, 2023 and pretrial motion deadline to February 24, 2023 (Order dated Jan. 9, 2023).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether there is good cause to modify the scheduling order to extend expert discovery	Roush acted diligently: timely noticed depositions, sought relief promptly once experts became unavailable, and filed before the cutoff	The request is untimely under Local Rule 144(d) and will disrupt the Court’s docket	Court: Good cause shown (due diligence); extension granted to Feb 10, 2023
Whether the extension is prejudicial to Defendants and should be denied on that basis	Extension is limited and was sought after Defendants’ failure to produce experts; prejudice is speculative	Extension will force substantial fees, new defenses, and is prejudicial as a matter of law	Court: Prejudice consideration does not override Plaintiff’s Rule 16(b) showing; prejudice insufficient to deny
Whether Plaintiff complied with Local Rule 144(d) and/or acted untimely	Plaintiff sought court relief promptly after learning on Dec 1 that experts were unavailable and filed before Dec 9 cutoff	Plaintiff’s requests are last-minute and contrary to Local Rule 144(d)	Court: Filing before the cutoff and prompt action satisfied the rule; Court will not penalize Plaintiff for Defendants’ noncompliance

Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604 (9th Cir. 1992) (scheduling orders are central to case management; Rule 16(b) good-cause requires diligence)
Wong v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 410 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2005) (deadlines must be taken seriously; missing deadlines can justify sanctions or exclusion)
Zivkovic v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080 (9th Cir. 2002) (moving party bears burden to show good cause to modify scheduling order)
Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271 (9th Cir. 2000) (prejudice from allowing amendments may supply additional reason to deny relief but does not replace Rule 16(b) inquiry)
Koplove v. Ford Motor Co., 795 F.2d 15 (3d Cir. 1986) (scheduling orders are the "heart of case management")