Holzhauer v. Rhoades

Filing 194

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO REOPEN DISCOVERY by Judge Jon S. Tigar; denying 184 Motion to Reopen Discovery for Limited Purpose. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/11/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

MARY HOLZHAUER,

Case No. 13-cv-02862-JST

Plaintiff,
8
v.

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
REOPEN DISCOVERY

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

GOLDEN GATE BRIDGE HIGHWAY &
TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT,

Re: ECF No. 184

Defendant.
On February 23, 2016, Cross-claimant David Rhoades filed a Motion to Reopen Discovery

13

for Limited Purposes. ECF No. 184. Rhoades filed a motion to shorten time, which the Court

14

granted, and a hearing was held on March 10, 2016. ECF No. 193. Rhoades seeks “to re-open

15

discovery for the limited purposes of: 1) subpoenaing phone records of Captain Stacy Shonk and

16

Mr. Ketchum; 2) obtaining all of the materials from the Coast Guard of which Captain Hickey

17

reviewed that are in the District’s possession and control (including the phone records of Captain

18

Shonk); and 3) a short deposition of Captain Hickey regarding his review of the Coast Guard

19

records for impeachment and credibility purposes . . . .” ECF No. 184 at 18. For the reasons set

20

forth below, the motion is denied.

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Fact and expert discovery closed in April 2015. ECF No. 78. Trial was originally
scheduled for June 22, 2015, but was subsequently continued to, and is currently scheduled to
begin on, April 11, 2016. ECF No. 183.
According to Rhoades, “[o]n August 4, 2015, Mr. Rhoades and his counsel went to the
Coast Guard’s section to view [] documents and evidence regarding the collision” underlying this
action. ECF No. 184 at 8. These documents included “Captain Shonk’s cell phone records in
which he made several calls during [the time when the collision happened].” Id. “Thereafter, Mr.
Rhoades’ counsel immediately started forming a plan as to how to get this new information into

1

evidence.” Id. at 9. However, Rhoades’ counsel did not arrange to view the evidence again until

2

January 27, 2016. Id. During this second visit, “[t]he Coast Guard’s information also revealed

3

that the District’s counsel and its retained expert, Captain Hickey, actually met the Coast Guard

4

during its investigation,” despite the fact that Captain Hickey testified during his deposition that he

5

had no oral communications with anyone from the Coast Guard. Id.

6

Requests to modify a scheduling order made after the Court has set a timetable for

7

amending the pleadings are governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16. Coleman v. Quaker

8

Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 1294 (9th Cir. 2000). Rule 16(b)(4) requires “good cause” and the

9

consent of the Court to amend a scheduling order. “Rule 16(b)’s good cause standard primarily

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14

considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations,
Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Although the
existence or degree of prejudice to the party opposing the modification might supply additional
reasons to deny a motion, the focus of the inquiry is upon the moving party’s reasons for seeking
modification. If that party was not diligent, the inquiry should end.” Id.
The Court concludes that Rhoades has not been diligent in pursuing discovery or in

15
16
17

seeking modification of the scheduling order. Rhoades first went to the Coast Guard to view the
documents in question in August, 2015. After viewing Captain Shonk’s cell phone records,
Rhoades could have sought to reopen discovery at that time. Instead, Rhoades waited

18
approximately five months to return to the Coast Guard and view the documents again. By this
19

time – January 27, 2016 – trial was scheduled to begin in less than three months. Rhoades did not

20
file his motion to reopen discovery until approximately one month later on February 23, 2016, less
21
22
23
24
25

than two months before trial. Even with the Court having shortened time on the motion, and
having issued its order from the bench, trial is now only a month away. Given the imminence of
the trial date at the time Rhoades filed his motion, and the prejudice to the District inherent in
reopening discovery at this late date, Rhoades’ lack of diligence requires the Court to conclude
that he has not shown good cause to reopen discovery.1

26
27
28

1

The Court further notes that Rhoades failed to meet and confer with the District regarding his
request to reopen discovery with respect to the second and third categories of discovery listed
above. See ECF No. 190 at 7; ECF No. 191 at 5. Even if the Court found good cause to reopen
2

1

Accordingly, the Court denies Rhoades’ motion to reopen discovery

2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

3
4
5

Dated: March 11, 2016
______________________________________
JON S. TIGAR
United States District Judge

6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

discovery regarding the first set of documents, the Court would deny the motion with respect to
the second and third categories of discovery given Rhoades’ failure to follow the requirements of
this Court’s Standing Order for All Civil Cases, which provides: “If a discovery dispute arises, the
parties shall meet and confer in good faith to attempt to resolve the dispute.”
3