Sinatro v. Barilla America, Inc.
- Donna Ryu
- 4:22-cv-03460
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Sinatro v. Barilla America, Inc., Judge Ryu denied Barilla’s request to extend the expert-deposition deadline because it did not show good cause.
Barilla America, Inc.’s request to extend the deadline for deposing the plaintiffs’ class-certification experts was denied, and the case management conference was moved to March 14, 2024.
What happened
In Sinatro v. Barilla America, Inc., the plaintiffs filed a motion asking the court to approve a class action. The scheduling order required depositions of the plaintiffs’ experts to be completed by September 29, 2023, and set November 30, 2023, as the deadline for Barilla’s opposition.
Barilla asked to extend the deposition deadline, saying it needed more information from the experts. The court found that Barilla had not acted diligently: it waited to contact the plaintiffs about the experts, did not promptly follow up, and did not schedule the depositions until after the deadline had passed. The court denied the request because Barilla did not show good cause.
Judge Donna Ryu also vacated the November 15, 2023 case management conference and continued it to March 14, 2024, to coincide with the hearing on the plaintiffs’ class-certification motion.
The detailed version
- Sinatro v. Barilla America, Inc. · No. 4:22-cv-03460
- Donna Ryu
- Nov. 9, 2023
Background
The court had entered a stipulated Second Amended Case Management Scheduling Order. The order set August 30, 2023, as the deadline for the plaintiffs to file their motion for class certification; September 29, 2023, as the deadline to complete depositions of the plaintiffs’ experts concerning class certification; and November 30, 2023, as the deadline for Barilla America, Inc. to oppose the class-certification motion. The plaintiffs timely filed their motion and disclosed two experts.
In a joint discovery letter, Barilla moved to extend the September 29 deadline for completing the expert depositions. Barilla stated that it needed additional information from the experts before deposing them. The plaintiffs disputed that additional information was necessary and contended that their experts had set aside the 30-day period after the motion was filed to respond to subpoenas, prepare for depositions, and testify.
Court’s Analysis
A scheduling order may be changed upon a showing of “good cause,” meaning the moving party must show a sufficient reason for the requested change, including diligence in meeting the existing schedule. The court found that Barilla had not made that showing. Although the plaintiffs filed their motion and disclosed the experts on August 30, Barilla did not immediately notice the depositions or try to schedule them. Barilla first contacted the plaintiffs’ counsel about allegedly missing information on September 18, did not promptly follow up, and waited until October 6 to notice depositions for October 17 and 19—after the September 29 deadline had passed.
The court found that Barilla offered no convincing explanation for these delays and that nothing in the joint letter showed the plaintiffs caused the scheduling delay. Extending the deadline would likely affect the class-certification schedule and require additional extensions because the depositions probably could not be completed before Barilla’s November 30 opposition deadline. The court concluded that extending the deadline would be unfair because Barilla had not shown diligence.
Ruling and Case Schedule
The court denied Barilla’s motion to extend the expert-deposition deadline for failure to show good cause. The court also vacated the November 15, 2023 case management conference and continued it to March 14, 2024, so it would occur at the same time as the hearing on the plaintiffs’ class-certification motion.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.