DEREK MOBLEY v. WORKDAY INC (2026)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO CHANGE TIME

Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Change Time, seeking a two-month extension of the class certification deadlines and symmetrical periods for the parties to oppose related motions. (Dkt. No. 373.) Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16, Plaintiffs must show good cause to justify such a modification. This standard “primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” Kamal v. Eden Creamery, LLC, 88 F.4th 1268, 1277 (9th Cir. 2023) (citation omitted). Plaintiffs have shown good cause, so their motion is GRANTED.

Workday recently produced three bias evaluation reports that describe the company's internal analysis based on a random sampling of applicant data. These reports appear relevant to pivotal issues about alleged bias in the challenged AI tools. Plaintiffs submitted evidence that Workday has generally asserted privilege over data used to prepare bias audits and instructed a data scientist to refuse to answer certain questions about that topic on privilege grounds. Plaintiffs further argue that, due to the timing of the production, they have not had the opportunity to litigate whether the production of the reports waives privilege concerning the data used to prepare the reports, bias audit data more generally, and related deposition questions. Plaintiffs also say that they were unable to ask the data scientist questions about the recently produced reports, which she played a leading role in preparing, because the reports were not produced until after her deposition. Moreover, Plaintiffs say they were unable to question Workday's corporate designee effectively about the data analysis for those reports, because that designee was not familiar enough with the data analysis to answer those questions and this deposition occurred only two days after the reports were produced, giving Plaintiffs insufficient time to analyze the reports in consultation with their experts. Although Workday correctly observes that the reports total fewer than 75 pages, the length of the reports does not undercut their potential significance, the need for deposition testimony about the data analysis behind them, or the relevance of the data on which they were based. In light of the potential need for additional discovery, resolution of related discovery disputes, and modification of expert reports, Plaintiffs have shown good cause for the requested extension.

With respect to the briefing schedule, Plaintiffs fairly identify an asymmetry in the timing of the briefing, particularly in light of the potential need to depose additional expert(s) for the decertification motion. The requested adjustment is appropriate, and will be made.

Workday does not identify prejudice sufficient to overcome Plaintiffs' showing of good cause, particularly when the delay was prompted largely by Workday's production of significant new reports on the eve of class certification.

For those reasons, Plaintiffs' motion is GRANTED, and the following case deadlines are set:

Class certification motion Last day to depose expert(s) disclosed with class certification motion Opposition to class certification motion, motion to decertify Last day to depose expert(s) disclosed with class certification opposition and motion to decertify Reply to class certification motion Opposition to motion to decertify Last day to depose expert(s) disclosed with opposition to motion to decertify Reply to motion to decertify Class certification hearing September 14, 2026 October 5, 2026 November 10, 2026 November 30, 2026 December 8, 2026 January 6, 2027 January 20, 2027 February 10, 2027 March 9, 2027, at 10:00 a.m.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

RITA F. LIN United States District Judge