Hedrick et al v. Grant

Filing 128

ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. on 3/13/2014 DENYING 126 Request to Reopen Discovery. (Michel, G)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8
9
10
11

DARRIL HEDRICK, DALE
ROBINSON, KATHY LINDSEY,
MARTIN C. CANADA, DARRY
TYRONE PARKER, individually
and on behalf of all others
similarly situated,

14
15
16
17
18

ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO REOPEN
DISCOVERY

Plaintiffs,

12
13

2:76-cv-00162-GEB-EFB

v.
JAMES GRANT, as Sheriff of
Yuba County; Lieutenant FRED
J. ASBY, as Yuba County
Jailer; JAMES PHARRIS, ROY
LANDERMAN, DOUG WALTZ, HAROLD
J. “SAM” SPERBECK, JAMES
MARTIN, as members of the
YUBA COUNTY BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS,
Defendants.

19
20
21

On March 5, 2014, the parties filed a joint document,

22

in which Plaintiffs request to reopen discovery under Federal

23

Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 16(b)(4). Defendants oppose the

24

request.

25

discovery. Granting the motion would necessitate modifying other

26

scheduled dates which Plaintiffs do not pointedly address.

27
28

The

On

request

February

is

5,

construed

2014,

as

a

Plaintiffs

motion

to

previously

reopen

filed

a

motion to extend the scheduled discovery completion date. That
1

1

motion was noticed to be heard before a magistrate judge

2

February 26, 2014 – the same day on which discovery was to have

3

been

4

district

5

Plaintiffs sought to modify. A minute order issued concerning

6

that notice, stating the motion was “defectively noticed,” that

7

the motion would therefore “not be set for hearing,” and that

8

Plaintiff was “advised to properly re-notice the motion to be

9

heard before the assigned District Judge.” (Minute Order, ECF No.

10

122.) On February 10, 2014, Plaintiffs re-noticed the motion. The

11

motion was denied in an Order filed on March 3, 2014, since it

12

did not contain authority or bases justifying the relief sought.

completed;

13

however,

judge

In

the

had

that

notice

prescribed

motion

sub

the

was

improper,

scheduled

judice,

since

dates

Plaintiffs

on

the

which

fail

to

14

demonstrate that they have “good cause” to reopen discovery. Fed.

15

R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). Rule 16(b)(4) prescribes: “A schedule may be

16

modified only for good cause . . . .” Id. “Rule 16(b)‟s „good

17

cause‟ standard primarily considers the diligence of the party

18

seeking the amendment.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975

19

F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992).

20

[T]o demonstrate diligence . . . the movant
may be required to show . . . (1) that she
was diligent in assisting the Court in
creating a workable Rule 16 order, (2) that
her noncompliance with a Rule 16 deadline
occurred or will occur, notwithstanding her
diligent efforts to comply, because of the
development of matters which could not have
been reasonably foreseen or anticipated at
the
time
of
the
Rule
16
scheduling
conference; and (3) that she was diligent in
seeking amendment of the Rule 16 order, once
it became apparent that she could not comply
with the order.

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Jackson

v.

Laureate,

Inc.,

186
2

F.R.D.

605,

608

(E.D.

Cal.

1

1999)(citing In re San Juan Dupont Plaza Hotel Fire Litig., 111

2

F.3d 220, 228 (1st Cir. 1997), Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609, and

3

Eckert Cold Storage, Inc. v. Behl, 943 F. Supp. 1230, 1233 (E.D.

4

Cal. 1996))(citations omitted).

5

Plaintiffs have not explained why they should not have

6

been expected to have reasonably anticipated the amount of time

7

desired for discovery during the hearing at which the discovery

8

deadline was prescribed. Nor have Plaintiffs explained when they

9

first concluded that they could not comply with the prescribed

10

discovery deadline nor why they failed to file a timelier duly

11

noticed motion to extend the discovery deadline.

12

Since Plaintiffs have not shown good cause to reopen

13

discovery, the motion is denied.

14

Dated:

March 13, 2014

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3