FRESNO (LN) — U.S. Magistrate Judge Frank J. Santucci denied a motion to extend class certification discovery deadlines in Amanda Baldino-Miller’s employment lawsuit against Courtyard Management Corp. and Marriott International, ruling that the plaintiff failed to show good cause for the delay despite her counsel’s ongoing cancer treatment. The court, however, granted a new schedule for class certification briefing.
The court set a class certification motion filing deadline of June 26, 2026, and a hearing for September 25, 2026, but refused to extend the written discovery cutoff, which had already passed on March 2, 2026.
Plaintiff Amanda Baldino-Miller sought to extend the discovery deadline to August 2026 to allow time to compel Marriott to produce data on the putative class size, pay periods, and employee locations. She argued that Defendants refused to provide information beyond five sampled properties and that her counsel’s delay was due to serious medical issues related to cancer treatment.
The court noted that the scheduling order, entered June 23, 2025, explicitly warned that discovery motions must be filed sufficiently in advance of cutoff dates to allow for effective relief. The order set the written discovery cutoff for March 2, 2026, and the class certification motion filing deadline for April 27, 2026.
Despite these warnings, Baldino-Miller did not file a motion to compel until May 8, 2026, more than two months after the discovery cutoff and over two months after her counsel had attested the motion would be filed following a February 13, 2026, motion for continuance.
“The court appreciates Plaintiff’s efforts to meet and confer on the longstanding discovery disputes. But the meet-and-confer process must be tailored to the discovery schedule, not the other way around,” Judge Santucci wrote. “The appropriate remedy when faced with an unjustifiable or inadequate disclosure, answer, or response is to move for an order compelling disclosure or discovery after efforts to meet and confer fail.”
The judge acknowledged that the court had held seven status conferences to address the discovery impasse and had suggested that Plaintiff file a motion to compel. However, the court found that Plaintiff’s failure to follow that suggestion and her failure to abide by her own revised timeline persuaded the court that further extensions would result in additional delay.
“Disregard of the order would undermine the court’s ability to control its docket,” Judge Santucci wrote, citing Ninth Circuit precedent. “The failure to comply with this order may result in the imposition of sanctions.”
Defendants argued that the motion was untimely and that Plaintiff’s delay constituted a lack of diligence. They pointed to increased fees, business uncertainty, and fading witness memories as prejudice.
Plaintiff’s counsel had stated in a declaration that she had been experiencing health issues related to cancer treatment since May 2025, with significant side effects between October and the present that impacted her ability to litigate. The court expressed sympathy for these health issues but found they did not excuse the failure to meet the scheduling order’s deadlines.
The court also noted that Plaintiff’s first amended complaint, filed November 20, 2025, allegedly narrowed the putative class from thousands of non-exempt employees to between 300 and 800 employees, but this did not resolve the discovery dispute.
The court construed Plaintiff’s May 8, 2026, motion to compel as a motion to reopen discovery and to compel, and will address that motion once it is briefed. Discovery on Plaintiff’s individual claims will be held in abeyance from June 26, 2026, through September 11, 2026.
The case was removed from Fresno County Superior Court on November 15, 2023.