Hudock v. LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc.

Background

The plaintiffs in Hudock v. LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., and the related action captioned Ivan Villa Lara v. LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., moved to modify the scheduling order. They cited delays in discovery and argued that the existing schedule was no longer workable. The defendants objected initially, but during a telephone hearing agreed that a modest extension was appropriate as long as the previously agreed sequence of events did not change.

The existing schedule required substantial document production by November 15. The defendants met that deadline, but produced more than 200,000 documents. The plaintiffs also anticipated taking up to 20 depositions and argued that the March 1, 2019, discovery deadline did not provide enough time to process the discovery.

Court’s Analysis

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b), a scheduling order may be modified for good cause. The court explained that good cause exists when, despite the moving party’s diligence, the existing schedule cannot reasonably be met. The court found that the plaintiffs had been diligent in pursuing discovery, but that the scope of discovery had exceeded their reasonable resources.

Order

The court granted the plaintiffs’ motion to modify the scheduling order. It extended discovery by 60 days, requiring discovery to be completed by May 1, 2019. It also extended the class-certification briefing schedule by 60 days: the plaintiffs’ motion was due August 1, 2019; the defendants’ response was due September 15, 2019; and the plaintiffs’ reply was due October 15, 2019.

The modified order also set deadlines for fact-discovery motions, expert disclosures, expert reports, and expert depositions. Each party could depose no more than three expert witnesses. Expert testimony not fully disclosed under the schedule would be excluded from evidence at trial. Judge Katherine Menendez signed the order.