Opinion
1:18-cv-00774-ADA-EPG (PC)
04-17-2023
ROGER HEPNER, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF TULARE, et al., Defendants. NICHOLAS O'NEAL, Cross-Claimant, v. COUNTY OF TULARE, et al., Cross-Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANT COUNTY OF TULARE'S REQUEST TO RESET THE DISPOSITIVE MOTION DEADLINE TO COMPLY WITH THE TIME FRAMES SET FORTH IN RULE 56 OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE (ECF NO. 92)
On April 11, 2023, defendant County of Tulare (“Defendant”) filed a request to reset the dispositive motion deadline to comply with the time frames set forth in Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (ECF No. 92). On April 14, 2023, Plaintiff filed his opposition. (ECF No. 98). For the reasons that follow, the Court will grant Defendant's request in part.
I. DEFENDANT'S REQUEST
On April 11, 2023, Defendant filed a request to reset the dispositive motion deadline to comply with the time frames set forth in Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (ECF No. 92). According to Defendant, Defendant entered into two stipulations, drafted by Plaintiff, that extended certain dates and deadlines, and in both, the dispositive motion deadline was set before the close of expert discovery. (Id. at 3-4). However, Defendant never intended to agree to this. (Id.). Instead, Defendant only agreed to the stipulations so long as the dispositive motion deadline was after the close of expert discovery. (Id.). And, “[t]he original stipulation had the dispositive motion deadline scheduled 30 days after the expert witness discovery cut-off.” (Id. at 3). “Ultimately, believing that the stipulation would accurately reflect the agreement of the parties and not realizing that Plaintiff had significantly shortened the dispositive motion filing deadline to occur prior to expert witness disclosures, and the close of discovery, Defense counsel agreed that Plaintiff could electronically sign the document on her behalf.” (Id. at 3-4). The second stipulation repeated this error. (Id. at 4). Thus, Defendant argues “that good cause exists to continue the dispositive motion deadline to August 21, 2023, to accurately reflect the true agreement of the parties when the [first] stipulation was erroneously entered.” (Id. at 5). Additionally, good cause exists because, on April 5, 2023, Defendant received discovery responses from Plaintiff that indicate Plaintiff's intent “to rely on expert evidence on the issues of liability and causation in this case.” (Id.).
Defendant argues that this extension does not prejudice the parties “because there is no trial currently set in this case and the Pretrial Conference isn't scheduled until January 8, 2024.” (Id.).
II. PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION
On April 14, 2023, Plaintiff filed her opposition to the motion. (ECF No. 98). Plaintiff argues that the parties stipulated to setting the dispositive motion deadline prior to the close of expert discovery. (Id. at 2). “Setting the dispositive motion deadline before the close of expert discovery promotes the expeditious resolution of litigation, enhances judicial efficiency, and serves the interests of justice here.” (Id.). Plaintiff further argues that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 does not require the dispositive motion deadline to be set thirty days after the close of all discovery. (Id. at 3-4). Plaintiff argues that Defendant failed to show good cause for extending the deadline thirty days after the close of all discovery. (Id. at 3).
However, “in an effort to work with Defendant and absolve them of their concerns regarding Plaintiff's expert witness evidence, it is more than fair that the dispositive motion deadline be extended by no more than two (2) weeks from the date of expert disclosures - making the proposed dispositive motion deadline May 26, 2023.” (Id. at 2). With this shorter extension, Defendant will have Plaintiff's expert witness evidence prior to the dispositive motion deadline. (Id. at 4). Additionally, it would allow the parties to “incorporate the information obtained in Rebuttal Expert Disclosures in their respective Opposition and Reply.” (Id. at 2-3) (footnote omitted). Given this, Plaintiff argues that there is no need for a longer extension, which “will cause unnecessary delay and increased litigation costs.” (Id. at 4-5).
Plaintiff asks the Court to either deny the motion in its entirety, or to grant only a two-week extension of the dispositive motion deadline. (ECF No. 5).
III. ANALYSIS
The Court will grant Defendant's motion in part.
Defendant had at least four opportunities to notice that the dispositive motion deadline was set before the expert discovery cutoff, with the latest opportunity occurring on January 23, 2023. (ECF Nos. 67, 68, 75, & 76). However, Defendant did not bring this issue to the Court's attention until April 11, 2023. Nevertheless, as it appears that the parties intend to rely on experts, allowing the parties to gather and exchange expert evidence prior to the dispositive motion deadline will promote the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of this action (see Fed. R. Civ. P. 1). Additionally, Plaintiff does not address Defendant's allegation that Defendant only agreed to the stipulation so long as the dispositive motion deadline was set after the close of all discovery, nor does Plaintiff show any prejudice that an extension will cause. Therefore, the Court will grant Defendant's motion in part. Instead of granting Defendant thirty days from the close of expert discovery to file a dispositive motion, the Court will grant fourteen days.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 does not require the Court to set the dispositive motion deadline thirty days after the close of all discovery. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(b) (“Unless a different time is set by local rule or the court orders otherwise, a party may file a motion for summary judgment at any time until 30 days after the close of all discovery.”) (emphasis added).
Plaintiff's proposal for a two-week extension of the dispositive motion deadline does not provide Defendant with sufficient time. Plaintiff proposes a dispositive motion deadline of May 26, 2023, but this deadline runs before the rebuttal expert disclosure deadline of June 12, 2023, and the expert discovery cutoff of July 21, 2023 (see ECF No. 76, p. 2).
IV. ORDER
Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that:
1. The dispositive motion filing deadline is extended to August 4, 2023.
2. All other terms and conditions of the Scheduling Order (ECF No. 40) remain in full force and effect.
IT IS SO ORDERED.