Impossible Foods Inc. v. Impossible X LLC

Background

Fact discovery closed on April 14, 2025. Shortly before that deadline, Impossible Foods Inc. deposed a representative of Impossible LLC. The next day, Impossible Foods sought private judicial review of certain documents claimed to be protected by attorney-client privilege, arguing that an exception for documents related to possible wrongdoing might apply.

A magistrate judge initially denied the request for private review. Judge Freeman later granted Impossible Foods’ request for relief from that decision. The magistrate judge then requested more information about the documents, and the private review remained pending when Impossible Foods filed this motion.

The parties’ deadline to file dispositive motions—motions that could resolve claims without a trial—was July 3, 2025. Impossible Foods asked for approximately 35 additional days to prepare those filings. It also argued that the case had expanded beyond the assumptions underlying the original trial schedule, including because the defendants had requested a jury trial.

Parties’ Positions

Impossible Foods argued that it should not have to file summary-judgment motions while awaiting potentially important evidence concerning two of its claims. It also argued that allowing time for the review could avoid later supplemental briefing or the need for successive summary-judgment motions.

The defendants opposed the motion. They argued that further production of privileged emails was uncertain, that any produced information might not be material or non-cumulative, and that the existing schedule allowed Impossible Foods to supplement its summary-judgment record. They also argued that delay would significantly prejudice Impossible LLC by prolonging the practical, financial, and reputational effects of the litigation.

Court’s Reasoning

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16, a scheduling order may be changed for good cause and with the judge’s consent. The main consideration is the diligence of the party seeking the change. The court found that Impossible Foods acted diligently by seeking additional discovery promptly after the deposition testimony that led it to believe the emails might contain crucial evidence.

The court concluded that it made little sense to require Impossible Foods to file summary-judgment motions while potentially critical evidence was still under review. If important evidence were produced, the deposition might need to be reopened, and later supplemental briefing could be inefficient. The court treated any prejudice to the defendants as a secondary consideration and found that a short delay could allow more complete motions and potentially reduce the burden and expense of trial.

The court also determined that its schedule could not accommodate a potential jury trial lasting five or more court days beginning on November 10, 2025. Because the claims and the nature of the case had changed significantly, the trial needed to be reset.

Order

Judge Beth Freeman granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Modify the Scheduling Order. The court changed the schedule as follows:

The court also vacated the hearing previously scheduled for August 28, 2025, and decided the motion without oral argument.