Garcia, et al v. Veneman, et al

Filing 421

ORDER Denying in Part and Granting in Part Plaintiff's Motion to Supsend and Reset Discovery Deadlines (Doc. 411). ORDER Setting Telephonic Status Conference: (1.) Plaintiff's motion to suspend discovery pending resolution of her motion f or reconsideration is DENIED as moot; (2.) Plaintiff's request to extend the non-expert liability discovery deadline following resolution of the motion for reconsideration is GRANTED. (3.) The deadline to complete non-expert liability disco very is EXTENDED sixty (60) days after service of this order; and (4.) The Court SETS a telephonic status conference regarding non-expert liability discovery for May 18, 2017, at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom 8 (BAM) before the undersigned. The parties may appear telephonically at the conference with each party using the following dial-in number and passcode: dial-in number: 1-877-411-9748; passcode: 3190866. signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 4/12/2017. (Herman, H)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

GLORIA PALACIOS MORALEZ,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

v.
MIKE YOUNG1, Acting Secretary, United
States Department of Agriculture,
Defendant.

16

Case No. 1:16-cv-00282-AWI-BAM
ORDER DENYING IN PART AND
GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO SUPSEND AND RESET
DISCOVERY DEADLINES
(Doc. 411)
ORDER SETTING TELEPHONIC STATUS
CONFERENCE

17
18
19

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff Gloria Palacios Moralez’s motion to suspend

20

discovery and reset the discovery deadlines after resolution of her pending motion for

21

reconsideration.

22

Department of Agriculture (“Defendant”) opposed the motion, and Plaintiff replied. (Docs. 412,

23

415). The Court heard oral argument on April 7, 2017. Plaintiff’s counsel Brandon Nagy, Phillip

24

Fraas and Michael Tucci appeared by telephone.

25

appeared by telephone.

28

Defendant Mike Young, Acting Secretary, United States

Defendant’s counsel Joseph Frueh also

For the reasons that follow, Plaintiff’s motion to suspend discovery is discovery shall be

26
27

(Doc. 411).

1

Mike Young is now the Acting Secretary of the United States Department of Agriculture. Pursuant to Rule
25(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Mike Young is substituted for Thomas J. Vilsack as the defendant in
this action.

1

1

denied as moot, but her request to reset the deadline for non-expert liability discovery after

2

resolution of the motion for reconsideration shall be granted.

3

I.

Background

4

On March 1, 2016, Plaintiff’s claims were transferred to this Court. (Doc. 376). Pursuant

5

to a stipulation of the parties, Plaintiff filed a fourth amended complaint on May 13, 2016. The

6

amended complaint alleged two claims: (1) a violation of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act

7

(“ECOA”), 15 U.S.C. 1691(a), for alleged discrimination related to loans or loan servicing during

8

the periods January 1, 1981 to December 1, 1996, and October 13, 1998 to October 13, 2000; and

9

(2) a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) for alleged discrimination in

10

connection with the denial of crop disaster benefits in 1993. (Doc. 391). Defendant Secretary of

11

the U.S. Department of Agriculture answered the fourth amended complaint on June 13, 2016.

12

(Doc. 392).

13

On July 28, 2016, the Court issued a Scheduling Order, which set the deadline to complete

14

nonexpert/liability discovery as April 14, 2017. (Doc. 396). Thereafter, the parties exchanged

15

initial disclosures and written discovery. (Doc. 411-1 at p. 2 and Doc. 412 at p. 3).

16

On October 3, 2016, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s first cause of action

17

for violation of the ECOA for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and, in the alternative, for partial

18

summary judgment. (Doc. 399). On December 21, 2016, the Court denied Defendant’s motion

19

to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, but granted Defendant’s motion for summary

20

adjudication, allowing the matter to proceed against Defendant only on Plaintiff’s second cause of

21

action for violation of the APA. (Doc. 405).

22

On December 30, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s order

23

granting summary adjudication and limiting this action to her second cause of action for violation

24

of the APA. (Doc. 406). On February 1, 2017, the Court deemed the matter suitable for decision

25

without oral argument, and the motion for reconsideration was taken under submission as of

26

February 6, 2017. (Doc. 410).

27

On March 10, 2017, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to suspend discovery and reset the

28

discovery deadlines after the Court rules on the pending motion for reconsideration. (Doc. 411).
2

1

Defendant opposed the motion, and Plaintiff replied. (Docs. 412, 415).

2

Following oral argument on the motion to suspend discovery and resent deadlines, the

3

District Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration. Therefore, the case proceeds solely

4

on Plaintiff’s claim for violation of the APA based on alleged discrimination in connection with

5

the denial of crop disaster benefits in 1993. (Doc. 420).

6

II.

7

Pursuant to Rule 16(b), a scheduling order “may be modified only for good cause and

8

with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). The “good cause” standard “primarily

9

considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations,

10

Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). The court may modify the scheduling order “if it cannot

11

reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.” Id. If the party was

12

not diligent, the inquiry should end. Id.

13
14
15

III.

Legal Standard

Discussion
A. Parties’ Positions
1. Plaintiff’s Position

16

Plaintiff contends that discovery has been hindered by uncertainty regarding her

17

entitlement to pursue her ECOA claim. Plaintiff asserts that while there is some overlap between

18

her claims, the scope of discovery regarding the ECOA claim is significantly broader. If the

19

motion for reconsideration is granted and she is allowed to pursue her ECOA claim, it will be

20

impossible to complete necessary discovery on this claim by the current April 14, 2017 deadline.

21

Plaintiff asserts that no party has noticed or taken any depositions (except for Plaintiff’s) since the

22

filing of the motion to dismiss, and there are a number of potential deponents located throughout

23

the United States. However, the parties have continued to complete written discovery and

24

supplement their disclosures.

25

2. Defendant’s Position

26

Defendant argues that Plaintiff has not conducted diligent discovery, asserting that despite

27

Plaintiff’s representations regarding ongoing discovery in her motion for reconsideration, she has

28

not taken a single deposition or conducted other formal discovery except a first set of
3

1

interrogatories and document requests. (Doc. 412 at p. 3.) Defendant further argues that (1) the

2

filing of a motion for reconsideration does not toll discovery or establish good cause, (2) Plaintiff

3

has not identified the specific discovery she requires or how any obstacle prevented her from

4

conducting discovery, (3) there is no basis to suspend and reset discovery on the APA claim, and

5

(4) even if her motion for reconsideration is granted, she would not be entitled to further

6

discovery based on her representations in that motion that discovery was ongoing.

7

3. Plaintiff’s Reply

8

In her reply, Plaintiff argues that because her ECOA has been dismissed, she currently is

9

not entitled to discovery regarding her ECOA claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26.

10

As a result, she has been prevented from noticing the deposition of U.S. Department of

11

Agriculture officials and other identified knowledgeable persons that only have ECOA

12

information. Plaintiff also argues that she has been conducting written discovery, including

13

writing multiple letters to Defendant addressing deficiencies in responses to her interrogatories

14

and requests for production.

15

depositions will be necessary to complete fact discovery, given Defendant’s failure or inability to

16

provide records. Plaintiff reasserts that depositions are needed of the knowledgeable individuals

17

identified in the parties’ disclosure statements, including Defendant’s supplemental disclosures.

18

(Doc. 415 at p. 4). Plaintiff concludes that the uncertainty of whether she is entitled to conduct

19

ECOA-specific discovery prevents her from noticing and scheduling depositions of these

20

knowledgeable individuals and completing non-expert discovery by the April 14, 2017 deadline.

21

Finally, Plaintiff asserts that written discovery has revealed that

B. Analysis

22

As noted above, Plaintiff’s pending motion for reconsideration has been resolved by the

23

Court. Accordingly, her request to suspend discovery pending resolution of that motion is now

24

moot. However, given the previous period of uncertainty regarding the scope of discovery, the

25

Court finds good cause for a brief extension of the deadline to complete non-expert liability

26

discovery on the APA claim. Plaintiff has been diligent in pursuing written discovery, and has

27

not required the parties to expend resources on potentially unnecessary depositions. Further, a

28

brief extension to complete non-expert liability discovery on Plaintiff’s APA claim will not result
4

1

in prejudice to either party.

2

During oral argument, the parties disputed whether Plaintiff was entitled to discovery on

3

the discrimination component of her APA claim, with Plaintiff asserting that she could not rely on

4

agency records alone and will require depositions to fill any gaps in those records. The parties

5

also dispute the scope of and entitlement to comparator records. The Court will not resolve the

6

disputes at this time, and finds that a brief extension of the relevant discovery deadline will permit

7

the parties to resolve the disputed scope of discovery, by formal motion or other means, and

8

complete additional discovery, if any, on Plaintiff’s APA claim.

9

IV.

Conclusion and Order

10

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

11

1. Plaintiff’s motion to suspend discovery pending resolution of her motion for

12
13

reconsideration is DENIED as moot;
2. Plaintiff’s request to extend the non-expert liability discovery deadline following

14
15

resolution of the motion for reconsideration is GRANTED.
3. The deadline to complete non-expert liability discovery is EXTENDED sixty (60)

16

days after service of this order; and

17

4. The Court SETS a telephonic status conference regarding non-expert liability

18

discovery for May 18, 2017, at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom 8 (BAM) before the

19

undersigned. The parties may appear telephonically at the conference with each party

20

using the following dial-in number and passcode: dial-in number: 1-877-411-9748;

21

passcode: 3190866.

22
23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

April 12, 2017

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

25
26
27
28
5