Hall v. Google LLC

Background

Jalon R. Hall moved to modify the scheduling order under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) and 6(b)(1)(B). She sought to extend the expert-disclosure deadline from March 28, 2025, to July 11, 2025, and the fact-discovery deadline from May 9, 2025, to July 11, 2025. Hall said staff turnover, trial conflicts, a calendaring error, a mistaken belief that a stipulation had been filed, and other disruptions caused the delays.

Hall served an expert disclosure on April 30, 2025, 33 days after the deadline, but did not include the written report required by Rule 26(a)(2)(B). She also noticed six depositions during the final week of discovery without meeting and conferring with Defendants. The opinion states that Hall’s counsel represented that the expert report would be served by May 12, 2025, but Defendants’ declaration stated that no report had been produced as of May 29, 2025.

Analysis

The Court held that Hall had not shown the diligence required to modify the scheduling order or excusable neglect for missing the deadline. It found that the asserted reasons were largely within counsel’s control, that the delays would prejudice Defendants and disrupt the pretrial schedule, and that Hall had not acted promptly to correct the problems. The Court also found that Hall had not shown that the late disclosure was harmless or substantially justified under Rule 37(c)(1). Defendants stated that they had relied on the absence of a timely expert disclosure in deciding not to designate rebuttal experts.

Ruling

Judge Jon S. Tigar denied Hall’s motion to modify the case schedule. The Court granted Google LLC and Jamila Smith-Loud’s motion to prohibit Hall’s reliance on experts. The order bars Hall from offering expert testimony or relying on expert opinions, including those of Dr. Michele Cooley-Strickland, in this matter. The opinion addresses scheduling and expert-disclosure compliance rather than the underlying merits of the case.