Dahlberg v. Language Access Network, LLC.

Background

Catherine Dahlberg, who represented herself, filed two motions against Language Access Network, LLC. She sought an extension of the January 30, 2020 fact-discovery deadline and an order further restricting the internal sharing of information about her physical address.

Dahlberg had discussed alleged discrepancies in case documents with the defendant’s counsel in November 2019. Counsel asked her to identify the documents, provide copies, and explain her concerns in writing. Dahlberg did not follow up until a January 27, 2020 conference, after the defendant asked about the status of her request. She sent the documents two days later, shortly before the discovery deadline. The opinion states that she had possessed at least one document since March 2019 and another since before filing the lawsuit.

Extension of Discovery

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4), a scheduling-order deadline may be changed only for “good cause.” The court explained that the main measure of good cause is the moving party’s diligence in trying to meet the deadline.

The court denied the extension motion. It found that Dahlberg had known about the document issues for several months and could have promptly sent the documents to Language Access Network or asked the court for relief. Because she waited until the day before fact discovery closed and offered no compelling reason for the delay, the court concluded that she had not shown good cause to modify the scheduling order.

Physical-Address Protection

The court also denied Dahlberg’s motion concerning her physical address. An earlier protective order required the address to be treated as confidential and prohibited disclosure to anyone other than the defendant’s outside counsel. The court stated that any new attorney who participated in the matter would also be bound by those orders.

The court found no compelling reason to impose additional restrictions. It also found no basis to require the defendant to identify anyone who might have received Dahlberg’s address by mistake, because nothing suggested that the defendant or its counsel had learned the address or disclosed it in violation of the earlier orders.

Order

Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung denied Dahlberg’s Motion for Extension of Discovery Deadline and denied her Motion to Restrict Internal Sharing by Party—Protective Order Regarding Physical Address. The court ordered that all prior consistent orders remain in effect. The order also stated that violations of the order or earlier consistent orders could lead to appropriate remedies or sanctions, including costs, fines, attorney fees, limits on evidence, striking pleadings, dismissal with prejudice, or partial default judgment.