Hawecker et al v. Sorensen

Filing 114

ORDER Granting Motion to Amend Scheduling Order signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 3/12/2012. (Leon-Guerrero, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

CARRIE HAWECKER, et al.,

)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
RAWLAND LEON SORENSON,
)
)
Defendant.
)
_______________________________________ )
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
ROWLAND LEON SORENSON,
)
)
Defendant.
)
______________________________________ )

Case No.: 1:10-cv-00085 AWI JLT
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO AMEND
SCHEDULING ORDER
(Doc. 108)

22

Carrie Hawecker and Michelle Broussard seek an order extending discovery for 30 days to

23

allow them to propound written discovery to Defendant related to his recent statement, made at his

24

March 1, 2012 deposition, that at some time in the recent past he had a net worth of $16 million.

25

(Doc. 108).

26
27
28
1

1

On March 12, 2012, the Court heard argument regarding this motion. The Court has read and

2

considered the pleadings and arguments of counsel. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiffs’1

3

motion to compel discovery is GRANTED.

4

I. Factual and Procedural Background

5

Plaintiffs allege violations of the Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. §§ 3604 and 3617), and the

6

California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Cal. Gov. Code § 12955, et seq.), and the California

7

Unruh Civil Rights Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 51 et seq.), and the California Business and Professions

8

Code § 17200, et seq. (Doc. 1 at 9-10). In addition, Plaintiffs raise claims for unfair business

9

practices under the California Business and Professions Code § 17200, et seq., and wrongful eviction

10

under the California Code of Civil Procedure §§1159 and 1160. Id. at 10. Given these allegations,

11

Plaintiffs have stated a claim for compensatory and punitive damages. Id. at 11.

12

II. Motion to Amend

13

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(3), a case schedule may be modified only for good cause

14

and only with the judge’s consent. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b). In Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc.,

15

975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992), the Court explained,

16
17
18

. . . Rule 16(b)’s “good cause” standard primarily concerns the diligence of the party
seeking the amendment. The district court may modify the pretrial schedule “if it
cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 16 advisory committee’s notes (1983 amendment) . . .[T]he focus of the
inquiry is upon the moving party’s reasons for seeking modification. . . . If that party
was not diligent, the inquiry should end.

19
20

Parties must “diligently attempt to adhere to that schedule throughout the subsequent course of the

21

litigation.” Jackson v. Laureate, Inc., 186 F.R.D. 605, 607 (E.D. Cal. 1999); see Marcum v. Zimmer,

22

163 F.R.D. 250, 254 (S.D. W.Va. 1995). In part, the “good cause” standard requires the parties to

23

demonstrate that “noncompliance with a Rule 16 deadline occurred or will occur, notwithstanding

24

her diligent efforts to comply, because of the development of matters which could not have been

25

reasonably foreseen or anticipated at the time of the Rule 16 Scheduling conference . . .” Jackson,

26

186 F.R.D. at 608.

27
28

1

It is unclear whether Plaintiff United States joins in this motion but, clearly, they have no opposition to it.

2

1

Here, counsel report that at his most recent deposition on March 1, 2012, Defendant testified

2

that his net worth, at a time period relevant to this litigation, was $16 million. He reported further

3

that much–if not all–of this worth was lost due in the stock market and due to depreciating real estate

4

values.2 Though this evidence is not pertinent to issues of liability, the parties agree that it has

5

relevance to the issue of punitive damages. As Plaintiffs’ counsel noted, the question is not so much

6

where the money went but whether it no longer belongs to, or is within the control, of Defendant.

7

Though Plaintiffs have had an inordinate amount of time to conduct discovery–indeed, before

8

being consolidated with the government’s case, this case was nearly ready for trial–there is no

9

ignoring that the information at issue was not revealed until March 1, 2012. In and of itself, this

10

would not be sufficient grounds to justify amending the scheduling order because, of course, this

11

situation is frequently encountered when a key deposition is delayed until the eve of the discovery

12

cut-off. However, according to counsel, written discovery had been propounded already that should

13

have revealed this information, though discovery had been focused on the more recent past.

14

Moreover, Plaintiffs report that the highest net worth figure every reported to them by Defendant was

15

approximately $2 to $3 million. Thus, the Court does not find that there has been a lack of diligence.

16

II. Order

17
18
19

Based on the foregoing and good cause appearing, Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend the
Scheduling Order is GRANTED as follows:
1.

The discovery deadline is extended to April 11, 2012 but only as to inquiries into

20

Defendant’s statement related to his purported $16 million net worth and the

21

disposition of that worth;

22

2.

To the extent that previously propounded discovery encompasses these topics,

23

previous discovery shall not be duplicated. Instead, Plaintiffs SHALL notify

24

Defendant as to the specific discovery requests that require supplementation within 2

25
26
27
28

2

Defendant’s objection that a transcript of his testimony was not lodged, is properly made. However, it does not
appear that any counsel has yet received a copy of the transcript. Moreover, Ms. Melody–the only of the three attorneys
present at the argument on this motion–provided her account of the testimony. As an officer of the Court, the Court has no
doubt that this account is consistent with her recollection of the events. For purposes of this motion, the Court finds this
account suffices.

3

1
2

days of service of this order;
3.

produce documents, related to these topics3;

3
4

Plaintiffs SHALL not propound more than 10 interrogatories and 10 requests to

4.

No other amendments to the scheduling order are authorized.

5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6

Dated: March 12, 2012
9j7khi

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
3

28

Because Defendant has no objection to subpoenas for records being issued to third parties, the Court’s order here
does not preclude these efforts.

4