IN RE: Realpage, Inc., Rental Software Antitrust Litigation (No. II)

of good cause are: (1) the moving parties' diligence to date, and (2) lack of prejudice to the non- moving party. Singh v. Vanderbilt Univ. Med. Ctr., 2020 WL 6290321, at *2 (M.D. Tenn. Oct. 26, 2020) (citing Ross v. Am. Red Cross, 567 F. App'x 296, 306 (6th Cir. 2014)). First, there is no doubt Plaintiffs have been working diligently. Between January 2025 and August 2025, Defendants produced 13,949,442 documents to Plaintiffs. (Doc. No. 1207 at 14-

15). Having to digest this amount of information, standing alone, would constitute good cause for an extension. Despite arguing that Plaintiffs should have foreseen the size of the production in this large, complex case, Defendants concede that the production was "massive." (Doc. No. 1211 at 7) (Defendants note the "enormity of the data sets"). Relatedly, Plaintiffs had to overcome significant technological hurdles to allow them to review and analyze the enormous dataset, including purchasing new servers and upgrading their old ones. (Doc. No. 1207 at 18). Moreover, several productions were delayed, (id.)—a fact that Defendants do not contest, but merely brush off as part of the "ordinary course of document production in a large, complex case." (Doc. No. 1211 at 9). Finally, Plaintiffs have engaged in significant, time-consuming mediation efforts that have resulted in 27 proposed settlements.¹(Id. at 24). Simply put, Plaintiffs have undertaken a mountain of work over the past year and the Court is fully satisfied that Plaintiffs' attorneys have been working diligently. Plaintiffs also properly requested their extension well-ahead of the expiration of the existing deadlines.

Second, Defendants will be unharmed by the proposed modifications. Rather than identifying any actual prejudice stemming from Plaintiffs' modification request, Defendants

2

complain that Plaintiffs waited until the end of the discovery period to notice 150 depositions.² (Doc. No. 1211 at 4). They then suggest that if Plaintiffs are given more time, they will notice even more depositions and that will prejudice Defendants. (Id.). By the Court's calculation, though, its Order on Deposition Limits would allow Plaintiffs to take at least 280 depositions. (Doc. No. 911). Defendants do not explain how they would be objectively prejudiced if Plaintiffs were given more time, and subsequently noticed the number of depositions they are allowed to notice under the Court's current Order.³Because Plaintiffs' proposed modifications will only shift the pretrial deadlines that come before the already established summary judgment deadline of March 1, 2027, and because the proposed modifications will not compress any of Defendants' response deadlines, they will not be prejudiced. In fact, extending the fact and expert discovery deadlines will allow the parties to negotiate an unhurried deposition schedule, something Defendants appear to favor.

In sum, Plaintiffs have established good cause for an extension of time because of the massive document production, the complex nature of the alleged price fixing allegations, the

3

critical role of experts in such cases and the need for Plaintiffs to adequately prepare for class certification and Daubert motions in a large and complex case that will still have the usual imperfect discovery challenges. Moreover, Defendants will likely be helped, not harmed, by an extension that would allow the parties to take depositions at a more civilized pace. Accordingly, Plaintiffs' Motion to Modify the Case Management Order (Doc. No. 1206) is

GRANTED.

The Case Management Order (Doc. No. 891) is modified as follows:

4

The parties shall now abide by the deadlines outlined in this chart.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

____________________________________

WAVERLY D. CRENSHAW, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5