Alcazar v. Fashion Nova, Inc.
- Jon Tigar
- 4:20-cv-01434
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
Alcazar v. Fashion Nova, Inc.: Judge Tigar denied Fashion Nova’s request to reopen discovery for an expert rebuttal report and Alcazar’s deposition.
Fashion Nova, Inc.’s request to reopen discovery was denied; the order concerned its proposed rebuttal expert report and deposition of Juan Alcazar.
What happened
In Alcazar v. Fashion Nova, Inc., Fashion Nova asked the court to reconsider an earlier order that refused to change the case schedule. It wanted permission to file a rebuttal expert report and depose Juan Alcazar.
Fashion Nova argued that its former lawyers had not handled discovery diligently. The court found some evidence of that failure but said it did not amount to the extreme or gross negligence needed to excuse Fashion Nova’s responsibility for its lawyers’ actions.
The court therefore declined to revisit its earlier finding that Fashion Nova had not shown good cause to change the schedule and denied the reconsideration motion. Judge Jon S. Tigar issued the order.
The detailed version
- Alcazar v. Fashion Nova, Inc. · No. 4:20-cv-01434
- Jon Tigar
- Oct. 31, 2023
Background
Fashion Nova moved for reconsideration of the court’s July 6, 2023 order denying its request to amend the scheduling order. Fashion Nova sought permission to file a rebuttal expert report and depose Plaintiff Juan Alcazar.
Fashion Nova argued that it had discovered after the earlier ruling that its prior counsel had been negligent in pursuing discovery. According to Fashion Nova, prior counsel did not retain experts until the deadline for rebuttal reports, did not timely disclose those experts, and did not depose Alcazar despite having noticed his deposition in November 2021. Fashion Nova asked the court to attribute its lack of diligence to that negligence.
Legal standards
The court explained that it may reconsider an interlocutory order—an order issued before final judgment—under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). Reconsideration is generally appropriate only when there is newly discovered evidence, clear error, or an intervening change in controlling law. The district’s local rules also require reasonable diligence and one of several specified grounds, including a material difference in fact or law learned after the earlier order.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) allows a court to modify a discovery schedule for good cause. The main consideration is whether the party seeking to reopen discovery acted diligently. A party that was not diligent may still show good cause if former counsel’s conduct amounted to gross negligence or abandonment.
Court’s analysis
The court recognized that there was some evidence that Fashion Nova’s prior counsel had failed to pursue discovery diligently. But it held that the circumstances fell short of the extreme negligence or egregious conduct required to avoid the general rule that a client is responsible for its lawyer’s negligent acts. The court also found that the conduct did not amount to gross negligence or abandonment.
Disposition
The court declined to revisit its earlier determination that Fashion Nova had not shown good cause to amend the scheduling order. It denied Fashion Nova’s motion for reconsideration.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.