Opinion
2:21-cv-02403 WBS DB
09-28-2023
FAUN O'NEEL, individually and as Guardian Ad Litem for her children B.T., A.O., D.O., and A.T., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF FOLSOM, a public entity; SPENSER HEICHLINGER, an individual; MELANIE CATANIO, an individual; LOU WRIGHT, an individual; DOE CITY OF FOLSOM DEFENDANTS, individuals; KERYN STARKS, an individual; SASHA SMITH, an individual; COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, a public entity; DOE DCFAS DEFENDANTS, individuals; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants.
ORDER
WILLIAM B. SHUBB UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Defendant County of Sacramento (“defendant”) filed an ex parte application to extend discovery and trial deadlines. (Appl. (Docket No. 53).) Plaintiffs opposed. (Opp'n (Docket No. 54).)
On September 5, 2023, plaintiffs filed their Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”). (Docket No. 49.) The TAC adds two defendants, three judicial deception & continued detention claims, and new allegations for damages. (Id.; Appl. Mem. (Docket No. 53-1) at 2-4.) Defendant seeks a 90-day extension to discovery and trial-related deadlines to conduct discovery relating to these additions. Plaintiffs argue that this is not an earnest request because fact discovery has now been open for over a year, but none of the defendants have made any discovery requests or attempted to depose any witnesses. (Opp'n at 2.) Plaintiffs further allege that they would be prejudiced by an extension because it would add to their legal expenses. (Id. at 5.)
One of the new defendants, Sasha Smith, is now represented by the County of Sacramento. (Appl. Mem. at 4.)
Parties conferred, unsuccessfully, about a stipulated agreement for extending deadlines. Plaintiffs offered defendant a 30-day extension of all pre-trial dates, but only if all defendants would stipulate that expert testimony on the issue of exigency/warrantless removals “do[es] not apply.” (Appl. Mem. at 4.) That offer was apparently declined, and defendant's instant ex parte application is the result.
A party seeking to modify a scheduling order must make a showing of good cause, a standard which focuses on the diligence of the moving party. Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b)(4); Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 915 F.2d 604, 608-09 (9th Cir. 1992). Plaintiffs' recent filing of the TAC and defendant's reasonable diligence in seeking an extension shortly thereafter provide sufficient good cause to modify the scheduling order. Further, while the court takes note of plaintiffs' charge that no defendant has undertaken any discovery up to this point, plaintiffs fail to demonstrate any concrete, overriding prejudice they would suffer from any extension. Accordingly, the court will extend discovery and trial-related deadlines by 60 days, with adjustments as necessary to account for weekends, holidays, and the court's availability for pretrial conference and trial.
IT IS THEEREFORE ORDERED that the Stipulated Request to Continue Pre-Trial Deadlines Order (Docket No. 46) and Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order (Docket No. 34) be, and the same hereby are, MODIFIED as follows:
Deadline
Existing
As Modified
Disclosure of experts and production of Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(2) reports
September 28, 2023
November 27, 2023
Disclosure of rebuttal experts and production of Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(2) reports
October 16, 2023
December 15, 2023
Completion of all discovery, including depositions for preservation of testimony; all discovery motions
November 22, 2023
January 19, 2024
All motions, except motions for continuances, temporary restraining orders, or other emergency applications
December 15, 2023
February 13, 2024
Final pretrial conference
February 26, 2024, at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom No. 5
May 6, 2024, at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom No. 5
Jury trial
April 23, 2024
June 25, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. at Courtroom No. 5
IT IS SO ORDERED.