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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?