Beecham et al v. Roseville City School District et al

Filing 125

ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 6/16/17. The Court DENIES Van Wagner's MOTION 76 . (Mena-Sanchez, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15

DUANE BEECHAM, KIMBERLY
BEECHAM, S.Y.B., a minor by and
through her co-guardians ad litem DUANE
BEECHAM and KIMBERLY BEECHAM,
OLIVER VERGARA, JENNIFER
VERGARA, E.V., a minor by and through
his co-guardians ad litem OLIVER
VERGARA and JENNIFER VERGARA,

v.

17

19

ORDER

Plaintiffs,

16

18

No. 2:15-CV-01022-KJM-EFB

ROSEVILLE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT,
THERESA VAN WAGNER, GEORGE
ROOKS, JERROLD JORGENSEN, and
DOES 1-30,

20

Defendants.

21
22

Defendant Theresa Van Wagner moves to modify the scheduling order to permit

23

additional discovery. Mot., ECF No. 76. Plaintiffs oppose. Opp’n, ECF No. 87. Van Wagner

24

filed a reply. Reply, ECF No. 89. The court submitted the matter without oral argument. ECF

25

No. 92. For the reasons discussed below, the court DENIES Van Wagner’s motion.

26

/////

27

/////

28

/////
1

1

I.

BACKGROUND

2

Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit on May 12, 2015, Compl., ECF No. 1, and a first

3

amended complaint in November 2015, First. Am. Compl. (“FAC”), ECF No. 30. The court’s

4

pretrial scheduling order set January 23, 2017 as the discovery deadline. Scheduling Order, ECF

5

No. 27.

6

In December 2016, Van Wagner issued twenty-two pretrial subpoenas for the

7

employment and medical records of plaintiffs Jennifer and Oliver Vergara. Young Decl. ¶ 8,

8

ECF No. 87-1. On January 20, 2017, Van Wagner served plaintiffs with four sets of written

9

discovery requests. Id. ¶ 12.
In April 2017, the court denied defendants’ joint motion1 to extend the discovery

10
11

deadline. Order, ECF No. 82. On April 10, 2017, Van Wagner filed her current motion to extend

12

the discovery deadline. Mot.

13

II.

AMENDING THE SCHEDULING ORDER

14

The pretrial scheduling order is designed to allow the district court to better

15

manage its calendar and to facilitate the more efficient disposition of cases by settlement or by

16

trial. See Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607–08 (9th Cir. 1992). A

17

scheduling order may only be changed with the court’s consent and for “good cause.”

18

Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). A scheduling order is not “a frivolous piece of paper, idly entered,

19

which can be cavalierly disregarded by counsel without peril.” Johnson, 975 F.2d at 610 (quoting

20

Gestetner Corp. v. Case Equip. Co., 108 F.R.D. 138, 141 (D. Me. 1985)). On the other hand, the

21

“good cause” standard requires less than the “manifest injustice” test used to modify a final

22

pretrial order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(e); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 16, 1983 Advisory Committee

23

Notes (“Since the scheduling order is entered early in the litigation, this standard seems more

24

appropriate than a ‘manifest injustice’ or ‘substantial hardship’ test.”). When litigants request

25

changes to a scheduling order, the court’s inquiry focuses primarily on the diligence of the

26
27
28

1

Although Van Wagner was originally precluded from joining defendants’ motion due to
an automatic bankruptcy stay that ran from January 26 through March 22, 2017, ECF Nos. 57, 68,
Van Wagner subsequently joined the motion, ECF No. 75.
2

1

moving party, Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609, and that party’s reasons for seeking modification,

2

C.F. ex rel. Farnan v. Capistrano Unified Sch. Dist., 654 F.3d 975, 984 (9th Cir. 2011). A

3

district court has “broad discretion” to grant or deny a continuance. United States v. Flynt,

4

756 F.2d 1352, 1358 (9th Cir. 1985).

5

III.

6

DISCUSSION
Van Wagner moves to extend the discovery cut-off to obtain (1) plaintiffs’

7

response to recent written discovery requests; (2) Jennifer and Oliver Vergara’s therapy records;

8

and (3) Jennifer Vergara’s employment records. Mot. at 1.

9

Van Wagner first requests more time to obtain plaintiffs’ responses to written

10

discovery requests she propounded on January 20, 2017, three days before the discovery cut-off

11

by which all discovery motions were to have been heard. Mot. at 3. She asserts the written

12

discovery was based on a deposition taken on January 14, 2017. Id. In its prior order denying

13

defendants’ joint motion to extend the discovery cut-off, the court rejected defendants’ arguments

14

that relied on information learned in the January 14, 2017 deposition. Order at 3:19–5:5. As the

15

court explained, defendants did not explain why they could not have learned the relevant

16

information much sooner. Id. Similarly here, Van Wagner has omitted any explanation of why

17

she had to wait until three days before the discovery cut-off to propound written discovery

18

requests. See Mot. at 3. Van Wagner has not established good cause to support her first request.

19

Van Wagner’s remaining requests fare no better. Van Wagner requests more time

20

to obtain the Vergaras’ medical records and Jennifer Vergara’s employment records. Id. at 4. As

21

Van Wagner explains, she issued subpoenas on December 16, 2016, and no records were returned

22

because Van Wagner did not have the correct information for plaintiffs. Id. Exs. E–G, I; Reply at

23

2–3. But Van Wagner provides no explanation for why she could not have obtained the correct

24

information, including the Vergaras’ therapist’s location or Jennifer Vergara’s full or maiden

25

name, much earlier during discovery. As with defendants’ prior motion to extend the discovery

26

period, Van Wagner does not explain why she did not propound written discovery requests to

27

gather this information much sooner. See Order at 3–5 (citing Chopourian v. Catholic

28

Healthcare W., 2011 WL 3816969, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 29, 2011), in which this court observed
3

1

that “counsel has not suggested he was unable to develop the claim through interrogatories and

2

requests for admission or production; that he may have preferred to conduct depositions is not

3

sufficient”). Van Wagner has not shown she was diligent in complying with the court’s

4

scheduling order. Without her diligence, “the inquiry should end.” Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609.

5

For these reasons, Van Wagner has not shown good cause exists to support her

6

second or third request.

7

IV.

CONCLUSION

8

The court DENIES Van Wagner’s motion.

9

This order resolves ECF No. 76.

10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: June 16, 2017.

12
13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4