Perez-Pinon v. Target Corporation
- Katherine Menendez
- 0:23-cv-03891
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Perez-Pinon v. Target Corporation, Judge Foster denied Target’s motion to modify the scheduling order because it failed to show diligence and good cause.
Target Corporation’s request to reopen expert discovery and extend the pretrial schedule was denied; Violeta Perez-Pinon opposed the request.
What happened
In Perez-Pinon v. Target Corporation, Target asked to extend expired pretrial deadlines so it could reopen expert discovery, file related motions, and file a dispositive motion later. Violeta Perez-Pinon opposed the request.
The court explained that changing the scheduling order required good cause. Target relied on its substitution of lawyers, but the court said hiring new counsel alone was not enough.
Judge Dulce J. Foster denied Target’s motion because Target and its lawyers had not shown the required diligence or adequately explained why they did not seek a broader schedule change earlier.
The detailed version
- Perez-Pinon v. Target Corporation · No. 0:23-cv-03891
- Katherine Menendez
- July 3, 2025
Background
The court considered Target Corporation’s motion to modify the scheduling order. Target asked to extend expired pretrial deadlines so it could reopen expert discovery, file non-dispositive motions related to that discovery, and file a dispositive motion two months after expert discovery closed. Violeta Perez-Pinon opposed the motion.
Court’s Analysis
Under Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a court may amend a pretrial schedule only for “good cause.” Target relied on its substitution of counsel as the basis for good cause. The court explained that retaining new counsel alone does not establish good cause to change a scheduling order.
The court also found that Target’s current counsel had been able to request a specific schedule change more than two weeks earlier but did not ask for a broader modification before the deadline for dispositive motions passed. The court concluded that neither Target nor its counsel had shown the diligence required by Rule 16.
Disposition
Judge Dulce J. Foster denied Target Corporation’s Motion to Modify Scheduling Order. The order did not state that the motion was denied with or without prejudice.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.