Soleil Toujours LLC v. United States

Background

The defendants filed a letter motion seeking an extension of time to serve expert disclosures. They attributed the delay to a recent substitution of counsel. The plaintiff opposed the request and argued that retaining new counsel did not justify failing to follow the discovery schedule.

The court had previously extended the expert-disclosure deadline to October 2, 2025. The opinion states that, between August 27 and October 2, an irreconcilable breakdown occurred between the defendants and their former counsel. The defendants also had difficulty finding new counsel and paying the expert’s fees. Former counsel informed the court on October 16 that new counsel had been retained, new counsel appeared on October 20, and the extension motion was filed on October 31.

Court’s analysis

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) allows a scheduling order to be changed only for good cause and with the judge’s consent. The court explained that good cause generally depends on the moving party’s diligence. It also considered Rule 37(c)(1), which generally requires exclusion of untimely expert testimony unless the failure was substantially justified or harmless.

The court found that the substitution of counsel substantially justified the missed deadline and that defense counsel acted diligently by bringing the issue to the court relatively soon after appearing. The court also found that the proposed expert testimony about asset misappropriation concerned the heart of the defendants’ defense and counterclaims.

The court found that prejudice weighed modestly in the plaintiff’s favor because the requested extension would delay expert discovery and burden the plaintiff’s counsel’s schedule. But the defendants sought only a five-week extension, and the court concluded that a continuance could address the plaintiff’s scheduling concerns. The court also noted that the parties had previously requested several extensions and that no deadlines had been set beyond the completion of expert discovery.

Ruling

Magistrate Judge Victoria Reznik granted the defendants’ request for an extension of time to serve their expert disclosures to November 17, 2025. The court also granted the plaintiff’s requests for extensions to serve rebuttal expert disclosures to February 16, 2026, and to conduct expert depositions to March 16, 2026. The court stated that no further extensions would be allowed.