Sommer v. United States of America et al

Filing 118

ORDER denying without prejudice 107 Ex Parte Application to Amend Scheduling Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Bernard G. Skomal on 12/21/11. (lao)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11

CYNTHIA SOMMER,

12
13

Plaintiff,
vs.

14
15
16
17
18

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO MEDICAL
EXAMINER’S OFFICE, GLENN N.
WAGNER, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE,
BONNIE DUMANIS, LAURA GUNN,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 09cv2093-WQH (BGS)

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE
EX PARTE APPLICATION TO AMEND
SCHEDULING ORDER
[Doc. No. 107]

19
20
21
22
23

Procedural Background

24

Plaintiff, Cynthia Sommer, filed this lawsuit on September 24, 2009. (Doc. No. 1.) On April

25

26, 2010, Magistrate Judge William McCurine issued a scheduling order. (Doc. No. 30.) The

26

Scheduling Order set May 24, 2010 as the deadline for moving to amend the pleadings. Id. The parties,

27

however, only conducted limited document discovery prior to dismissing Plaintiff’s claim against Jose

28

Centeno in his individual capacity. (Doc. No. 65.) Pursuant to the most recent scheduling orders, all

1

fact discovery was to be completed by September 2, 2011 and all expert discovery was to be completed

2

no later than November 18, 2011. (Doc. Nos. 97, 101.)

3

Ex Parte Application to Amend Scheduling Order

4

On December 12, 2011, Plaintiff filed an Ex Parte Application to Amend the Court’s Scheduling

5

Order to permit Plaintiff to file a motion to amend the complaint. (Doc. No. 107.) Plaintiff argues that

6

deposition testimony from 16 fact witnesses revealed new evidence supporting her conspiracy and

7

Deveauraux claims. Plaintiff further argues that the newly discovered facts will bolster the claims in

8

the original complaint but will not plead new claims or name new parties. (Doc. No. 107 at 5.)

9

A. Legal Standard

10

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 states that “A schedule may be modified only for good cause

11

and with the judge’s consent.” When the motion to extend time is made after time has expired, “the

12

court may, for good cause, extend the time . . . if the party failed to act because of excusable neglect.”

13

Fed. R. Civ. P 6(b)(1). The determination of excusable neglect takes into account: “(1) the danger of

14

prejudice; (2) the length of the delay and its potential impact on judicial proceedings; (3) the reasons

15

for the delay which includes whether it was within the reasonable control of the party seeking to show

16

excusable neglect; and (4) whether that party acted in good faith.” Coleman v. Blue Cross Blue Shield

17

of Kan., 487 F. Supp. 2d 1225, 1234-35 (D. Kan. 2007).

18

“When the proposed modification is an amendment to the pleadings, the moving party may

19

establish good cause by showing ‘(1) that [he or she] was diligent in assisting the court in creating a

20

workable Rule 16 order; (2) that [his or her] noncompliance with a rule 16 deadline occurred or will

21

occur, notwithstanding [his or her] diligent efforts to comply, because of the development of matters

22

which could not have been reasonably foreseen or anticipated at the time of the Rule 16 scheduling

23

conference; and (3) that [he or she] was diligent in seeking amendment of the Rule 16 order, once it

24

became apparent that [he or she] could not comply with the order.’” Hood v. Hartford Life and Accident

25

Ins. Co., 567 F.Supp. 2d 1221, 1225-26 (citing Jackson v. Laureate, Inc., 186 F.R.D. 605, 608

26

(E.D.Cal.1999) (citations omitted)).

27

///

28

///
2

09cv2093

1

B. Analysis

2

Fact depositions began in this case more than one year ago. (Doc. No. 65 at 2.) And in April

3

2011, the parties requested to amend the scheduling order a second time, but Plaintiff made no mention

4

of needing to amend the complaint in order to incorporate new facts learned during discovery. In July

5

2011, Plaintiff requested court approval to take more than 10 fact witness depositions because “recent

6

discovery” revealed the need to depose four additional witnesses. (Doc. No. 93.) Plaintiff, however,

7

did not mention the potential need to amend the scheduling order to file a motion to amend the

8

complaint based on what was learned during the recent discovery. Moreover, in August 2011, the

9

parties requested that the scheduling order be amended once again to allow more time to complete

10

expert discovery. (Doc. No. 99.) Nevertheless, Plaintiff did not request that the schedule also be

11

amended to allow her to file a motion to amend the pleadings based on what was learned during

12

discovery thus far.

13

Notably, Plaintiff should have completed all fact witness depositions more than three months

14

prior to bringing this motion—the Court specifically ordered that the last fact witness depositions be

15

completed by September 2, 2011. (Doc. No. 97.) Thus, it appears Plaintiff did not file the instant

16

request for amendment promptly after ascertaining the need to do so, especially since the stated need

17

is based on information gleaned from depositions.

18

Additionally, there is an indication that Defendants will be unduly prejudiced by allowing

19

Plaintiff to amend the scheduling order for the purpose of filing a motion to amend the complaint after

20

discovery has ended. Plaintiff’s request to amend the scheduling order was made less than 10 days

21

before the December 16, 2011 dispositive motions filing deadline. Plaintiff has not shown any

22

justification for failing to move to amend the scheduling order and her complaint earlier in the litigation.

23

At a minimum, Plaintiff should have moved to amend the scheduling order and the complaint around

24

October 20, 2011, when counsel determined that the complaint needed to be amended. See Decl.

25

Barber, Doc. No. 107 at 7 (stating that on October 20, 2011, Plaintiff’s counsel attempted to reach an

26

agreement with Defendants to permit the filing of an amended complaint).

27

In order for the Court to determine that Plaintiff was diligent in seeking amendment, Plaintiff

28

must first specify what new and previously unavailable facts she learned during depositions and the
3

09cv2093

1

particular dates these facts were learned. Plaintiff must also specify why the need to amend the

2

pleadings could not have been reasonably foreseen or anticipated during any of the previous

3

amendments to the scheduling order. In addition, Plaintiff must adequately explain why she waited at

4

least three months after learning the new facts before filing her motion to amend. Accordingly, the

5

Court does not find that Plaintiff has established good cause to amend the schedule at this late stage in

6

the case. Plaintiff’s request to amend the scheduling order so that she can file a motion to amend the

7

complaint is DENIED without prejudice.

8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9
10

DATED: December 21, 2011

11
12
13

Hon. Bernard G. Skomal
U.S. Magistrate Judge
United States District Court

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

09cv2093