Litvinova v. The City and County of San Francisco
- Richard Seeborg
- 3:18-cv-01494
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Litvinova v. San Francisco, Judge Seeborg granted continuances for discovery, pretrial deadlines, the conference, and trial.
The plaintiffs in Litvinova and the related Silloway case, and the City and County of San Francisco, are affected by the extended discovery, pretrial, conference, and trial deadlines.
What happened
Litvinova v. The City and County of San Francisco and a related case, Silloway v. City and County of San Francisco, involved requests to change the litigation schedule. The City asked to postpone trial because its lead trial lawyer was unavailable. The Silloway plaintiffs opposed the proposed dates and requested additional time for discovery; the Litvinova plaintiffs joined that request.
The court found good cause to change the schedule. It extended the deadline for already-noticed non-expert discovery to April 15, 2025; several expert-witness deadlines to May 14, June 11, and July 2, 2025; and the deadline for hearing pretrial motions to July 28, 2025.
Judge Richard Seeborg granted the City’s motion to continue the trial and granted the Silloway plaintiffs’ motion to continue discovery deadlines, which the Litvinova plaintiffs joined. The final pretrial conference was moved to February 9, 2026, and the jury trial was moved to February 17, 2026.
The detailed version
- Litvinova v. The City and County of San Francisco · No. 3:18-cv-01494
- Richard Seeborg
- Mar. 4, 2025
Background
The order concerns Litvinova and the related case Silloway, No. 20-cv-7400-RS. The City and County of San Francisco moved under the court’s local rules to continue the trial in both cases, stating that its lead trial counsel was unavailable on the scheduled dates. The Silloway plaintiffs opposed the proposed continuance and requested at least 60 additional days for other deadlines, citing what they described as significant delays in fact and expert discovery caused by the City. The Litvinova plaintiffs joined that request. The City later stated that it did not oppose continuing the trial date and the deadlines for completing noticed discovery.
Court’s analysis
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) allows a court to modify a scheduling order for “good cause.” The court explained that good cause exists when a deadline cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking an extension. It also stated that conflicts with a scheduled trial and the demands of discovery can establish good cause. The court found that good cause appeared in these cases.
Ruling
Judge Richard Seeborg granted the City’s motion to continue the trial and granted the Silloway plaintiffs’ motion to continue discovery deadlines, which the Litvinova plaintiffs joined. The court ordered the following schedule changes:
- The deadline to complete already-noticed non-expert discovery moved from February 14, 2025, to April 15,
- Existing limits on that discovery remained in effect. - The deadline to designate expert witnesses moved from March 15, 2025, to May 14,
- - The deadline to designate supplemental and rebuttal experts moved from April 12, 2025, to June 11,
- - The deadline to complete expert-witness discovery moved from May 3, 2025, to July 2,
- - The deadline to hear pretrial motions moved from May 29, 2025, to July 28,
- Existing limits on pretrial motions remained in effect. - The final pretrial conference moved from July 23, 2025, to February 9, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. - The jury trial moved from August 4, 2025, to February 17, 2026, at 9:00 a.m.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.