Berndt et al v. California Department of Corrections et al

Filing 540

ORDER by Judge Hamilton denying 530 Motion for Leave to File; denying 533 Ex Parte Application (pjhlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/12/2013)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7
MARTHA BERNDT, et al.,
8
Plaintiffs,

No. C 03-3174 PJH

9
v.
11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, et al.,

12

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION AND
DENYING ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTION

Defendants.
_______________________________/

13
14

Before the court are plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration of

15

the court’s denial of plaintiffs’ first administrative motion to modify the scheduling order,

16

filed on July 3, 2013, and plaintiffs’ second administrative motion to modify the scheduling

17

order, filed on July 10, 2013. Local Rule 7-9(d) does not provide for the filing of an

18

opposition to a motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration, but defendants did file

19

an opposition to plaintiffs’ second administrative motion. Having read the papers filed in

20

conjunction with the motions and carefully considered the arguments and the relevant legal

21

authority, and good cause appearing, the court hereby DENIES plaintiffs’ motion for leave

22

to file a motion for reconsideration, and DENIES plaintiffs’ second administrative motion as

23

follows.

24

In the court’s order denying plaintiffs’ first administrative motion, the court held that

25

plaintiffs had not been diligent in completing discovery. Plaintiffs argue that the court erred

26

in so finding, but the court now notes that plaintiffs waited nearly one year after the

27

issuance of a discovery scheduling order to begin discovery on defendants’ Rule 30(b)(6)

28

witnesses. When the (since-modified) scheduling order was issued on June 7, 2012, both

close of discovery. Specifically, the original scheduling order provided for non-medical

3

expert disclosures to be made on May 1, 2013, and provided for the close of discovery on

4

August 1, 2013. See Dkt. 464. The deadlines have since been modified to provide for non-

5

medical expert disclosures to be made on July 17, 2013, and for the close of discovery on

6

September 3, 2013. See Dkt. 521. Thus, plaintiffs were aware of the need to conduct any

7

discovery needed by their experts before the expert disclosure date. However, it appears

8

that plaintiffs did not even seek discovery from defendants’ Rule 30(b)(6) witnesses until

9

May 28, 2013, and noticed the deposition for July 25, 2013 - after non-medical expert

10

disclosures are due. Thus, the court reiterates its finding that plaintiffs have not been

11
For the Northern District of California

parties were aware that non-medical expert disclosures would be due in advance of the

2

United States District Court

1

diligent in seeking discovery. The deadlines imposed by this court were not arbitrary, but

12

were determined with the input of counsel. All of the prior modifications of the schedule

13

were at one or both of the parties’ request not at the whim of the court. In view of plaintiffs’

14

complaints to the court and to the Attorney General about the delays in this case and given

15

that the deadline was imposed more than a year ago and the deposition notice issued only

16

a few weeks ago, the court finds a lack of diligence on the part of plaintiffs. For these

17

reasons, the court DENIES plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration,

18

and DENIES plaintiffs’ second administrative motion to further modify the pretrial schedule.

19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 12, 2013
______________________________
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2