Baker v. Ensign

Filing 146

ORDER denying without prejudice 145 Joint Motion to Extend Deadline for Exchange of Expert Witness Reports and Deadline to Complete Expert Discovery. Court will allow Dft to re-submit the request. Any renewed request by Dft shall include Declaratio ns w/ the information noted in this Order, and shall be filed by 8/21/2014 5:00 PM. If Dft fails to file a renewed request by 8/21/2014, Pla and Third-Party Dfts shall re-serve their experts reports by 8/25/2014. Signed by Magistrate Judge William V. Gallo on 8/14/2014. (jah)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
JASON ENSIGN,
)
)
Defendant.
)
)
)
AND RELATED COUNTER-CLAIM )
AND THIRD PARTY COMPLAINT )
)
)
_______________________________ )
CAMERON BAKER,

Civil No. 11-CV-2060-BAS (WVG)
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF BAKER
AND DEFENDANT ENSIGN’S
JOINT MOTION REGARDING
DEFENDANT ENSIGN’S
REQUEST TO EXTEND
DEADLINE FOR EXCHANGE OF
EXPERT WITNESS REPORTS AND
DEADLINE TO COMPLETE
EXPERT DISCOVERY
[DOC. NO. 145]

I. BACKGROUND

20

On August 4, 2014, counsel for Defendant and Cross-Claimant, Jason Ensign

21

(“Defendant”), notified the Court that some of the parties wanted to request an

22

extension to certain expert discovery deadlines. Defense counsel informed the Court

23

that the request was joined by some parties, and rejected by other parties. On August

24

4, 2014, the Court Ordered the parties to file a Joint Statement with the Court by

25

August 8, 2014. (Doc. No. 142.) The parties joining in the request were required to

26

explain their reasons for the request, and the parties opposing the request were required

27

to explain their reasons for opposing the deadline extension in the Joint Statement. Id.

28

1

11CV2060

1

The Court limited each party to two pages in the Joint Statement, and noted that no

2

exhibits would be accepted. Id.

3

On August 8, 2014, in compliance with this Court’s Order, Defense counsel

4

filed a Joint Motion of Plaintiff Baker and Defendant Regarding Defendant’s Request

5

to Extend the Deadline for the Exchange of Expert Witness Reports and the Deadline

6

to Complete Expert Discovery. (Doc. No. 145.) In the Joint Motion, Defendant states

7

that the basis for his request is that his designated expert, Dr. Thomas Streed, was out

8

of town on two trials prior to the August 4, 2014, expert report deadline, and therefore,

9

he was not able to prepare his report. Id. at 2. Defendant notes that Dr. Streed was also

10

preparing for two other trials over the next two weeks. Id.

11

II. RULING

12
13

The Court does not find good cause to grant this request and hereby DENIES
the Joint Motion without prejudice for the reasons set forth below.

14

A. REQUEST IS UNTIMELY

15

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 16(b)(3), a district court

16

is required to enter a pretrial scheduling order that “must limit the time to join other

17

parties, amend the pleadings, complete discovery, and file motions.” Fed.R.Civ.P.

18

16(b)(3)(A). The scheduling order “controls the course of the action unless the court

19

modifies it[ ]” and Rule “16 is to be taken seriously.” Rule 16(d); Janicki Logging Co.

20

v. Mateer, 42 F.3d 561, 566 (9th Cir.1994). As the Eastern District of California has

21

stated, parties must “diligently attempt to adhere to [the court’s] schedule throughout

22

the subsequent course of the litigation.” Jackson v. Laureate, Inc., 186 F.R.D. 605, 607

23

(E.D.Cal.1999). “A scheduling order ‘is not a frivolous piece of paper, idly entered,

24

which can be cavalierly disregarded without peril.’” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations,

25

Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 610 (9th Cir.1992) (quoting Gestetner Corp. v. Case Equip. Co.,

26

108 F.R.D. 138, 141 (D.Me.1985)).

27

The Court finds Defendant’s request to be untimely. On November 20, 2013,

28

this Court issued a Scheduling Order which set the August 4, 2014, deadline by which
2

11CV2060

1

the parties were to provide expert witness reports.1/ (Doc. No. 67 at 2.) The August 4,

2

2014, deadline was set eight and half months before Defendant’s request to continue

3

the deadline, yet Defendant waited until the very day of the deadline to contact the

4

Court and request an extension.

5

The Court finds it difficult to believe that Defendant was unaware of the

6

roadblocks described in the Joint Motion until the day of the deadline. Defendant

7

essentially treated the granting of the Joint Motion as a forgone conclusion, the Court’s

8

approval being a mere formality in the process. However, the Court is not a mere

9

rubber stamp, and the Court would be justified in denying the request with prejudice

10

because it was received on the date of the expert report deadline.

11

B. NO GOOD CAUSE SHOWN

12

Rule 16(b)(4) “provides that a district court’s scheduling order may be

13

modified upon a showing of ‘good cause,’ an inquiry which focuses on the reasonable

14

diligence of the moving party.” Noyes v. Kelly Servs., 488 F.3d 1163, 1174 n. 6 (9th

15

Cir.2007); citing Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. In Johnson, the Ninth circuit explained,

16

... Rule 16(b)’s “good cause” standard primarily concerns the diligence of
the party seeking the amendment. The district court may modify the
pretrial schedule “if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of
the party seeking the extension.” Fed .R.Civ.P. 16 advisory committee’s
notes (1983 amendment) ... [T]he focus of the inquiry is upon the moving
party’s reasons for seeking modification.... If that party was not diligent,
the inquiry should end.

17
18
19
20

Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609.

21
22
23

In part, the “good cause” standard requires the parties to demonstrate that
“noncompliance with a Rule 16 deadline occurred or will occur, notwithstanding her
diligent efforts to comply, because of the development of matters which could not have

24
1/

25
26
27
28

On February 26, 2014, the Court issued an Amended Scheduling Order, which
granted Third Party Defendants’ request to move the time of the July 25, 2014,
Mandatory Settlement Conference (“MSC”). (Doc. No. 75.) As specified in the
Amended Scheduling Order, no other dates were changed. Id. at 1. On May 22, 2014,
the Court granted Defendant’s request to extend the fact discovery deadline to June 6,
2014, for the sole purpose of permitting a non-party to respond to a subpoena served
upon it by Defendant. (Doc. No. 97.) No other dates were changed.
3

11CV2060

1

been reasonably foreseen or anticipated at the time of the Rule 16 Scheduling

2

conference ...” Jackson, 186 F.R.D. at 608, emphasis added.

3

Here, the parties have been repeatedly warned that there will be no extensions

4

to the Scheduling Order absent good cause. See Scheduling Order (Doc. No. 67 at 6)

5

and Amended Scheduling Order (Doc. No. 75 at 6) (“The dates and times set forth

6

herein will not be further modified except for good cause shown.”)2/ The facts provided

7

by Defendant in the instant Joint Motion do not constitute good cause. Rather, the facts

8

simply demonstrate Defendant’s poor planning. Fact discovery closed on May 23,

9

2014. (Doc. No. 75 at 2.) Thus, Defendant had the information that Dr. Streed needed

10

to prepare his report more than two months before the report deadline. Defendant

11

should have exercised due diligence and immediately provided Dr. Streed with the

12

discovery necessary to prepare a report. This would have allowed Dr. Streed sufficient

13

time to prepare a report before his other obligations became more pressing.

14

In the instant Joint Motion, Third Party Defendants note that the only

15

prejudice that Defendant’s request would cause them relates to the limited time

16
2/

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

During a May 6, 2014, telephonic Discovery Conference with Defense counsel and
counsel for Third Party Defendants regarding subpoenas, Defense counsel noted that
the fact discovery deadline was approaching and Plaintiff had recently noticed several
depositions. Defendant had also recently noticed several depositions. The Court noted
that the parties had been aware of the fact discovery deadline for months, and stated
that the deadline would not be extended. The Court also admonished counsel for
waiting until the last minute to notice and conduct depositions. During a May 22, 2014,
telephonic Discovery Conference with counsel for all parties, the Court granted
Defendant’s request to extend the fact discovery deadline for the sole purpose of
permitting a non-party entity to respond to a subpoena. However, the Court indicated
that if the non-party entity objected to or provided responses to the subpoenas that
Defendant found to be unsatisfactory, the Court would not entertain any discovery
disputes because Defendant served the subpoena late in the discovery process. Further,
during a June 19, 2014, Discovery Hearing with Defense counsel and counsel for Third
Party Defendants, the Court stated that “this attitude that the rules of production and the
timeliness of production are just mere suggestions, I think is a wrong one.” (Doc. No.
140 at 28.)

28

4

11CV2060

1

remaining before the deadlines to exchange expert reports and to file pretrial motions.

2

(Doc. No. 145 at 2-3.) However, “prejudice is not the relevant inquiry. Rule 16(b)’s

3

‘good cause’ standard primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the

4

amendment.” Rogers v. Brauer Law Offices, PLC, 2011 WL 3665346, at *3 (D.Ariz.

5

Aug. 22, 2011); citing Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. As stated above, the Court is not a

6

mere rubber stamp, and the parties must show respect for the Court’s schedule and its

7

repeated admonishments not to wait until the eleventh hour to complete discovery.

8

The Court finds that Defendant’s justification for his request is devoid of any

9

facts showing his due diligence leading up to this request. Defendant has failed to

10

explain what he did, or could not do, to meet the expert report deadline. He has

11

provided vague facts about his expert’s availability prior to August 4, 2014, and

12

suggested that Dr. Streed was unavailable for long periods of time due to two trials and

13

preparation for two more trials. However, Defendant has failed to provide any detailed

14

information about Dr. Streed’s period of unavailability, his preparation for trial, or how

15

those obligations impacted his ability to prepare a report on time. Moreover, Defendant

16

has not provided any information about when he provided discovery to Dr. Streed so

17

that he could prepare a report.

18

C. DECLARATIONS REQUIRED

19

The Court acknowledges that it limited each party to two pages in the Joint

20

Statement requesting an extension of the expert report deadline. However, in those two

21

pages, Defendant failed to make even a prima facie case of due diligence, or to explain

22

the difficulties of submitting a report on time. The Court suspects that there is a reason

23

for the absence of supporting facts in that area, but nevertheless, the Court will allow

24

Defendant to re-submit this request along with signed Declarations by both Defense

25

counsel and Dr. Streed.

26
27

Each of the signed Declarations shall include the following information:

28

1. When did Defense counsel engage Dr. Streed as an expert in this case?
5

11CV2060

2. What was discussed regarding Dr. Streed’s other engagements when

1
2

Defense counsel engaged him as an expert in this case?

3

3. What steps were taken to mitigate those potential scheduling problems?

4

4. Was Dr. Streed informed of the Court’s expert report deadline of August

5

4, 2014?
5. When did Defense counsel provide Dr. Streed with the information that he

6
7

needed to prepare his report?

8

Any renewed request by Defendant shall include Declarations with the

9

information noted above, and shall be filed with the Court on or before August 21,

10

2014, at 5:00 p.m. If Defendant files a renewed request with Declarations, the Court

11

will potentially reconsider it’s denial of Defendant’s request to extend the deadline by

12

which to provide expert reports. Absent a showing that Defendant was diligent in

13

meeting the deadline, the request will remain denied.

14

In the Joint Motion, Defendant notes that unopened expert reports have been

15

returned to counsel for Third Party Defendants and counsel for Elite Show Services

16

(“Elite”). (Doc. No. 145 at 3.) Elite is not a party to this action, and the Court assumes

17

that Defendant meant to refer to Plaintiff’s counsel. Third Party Defendants note that,

18

should the Court deny Defendant’s instant request, they will promptly re-serve their

19

expert report, which was originally served by mail on August 1, 2014. Id.

20

//

21

//

22

//

23

//

24

//

25

//

26

//

27

//

28

//
6

11CV2060

1

If Defendant files a renewed request to continue the expert report date by

2

August 21, 2014, at 5:00 p.m., Plaintiff and Third Party Defendants may continue to

3

hold their expert reports until after the Court issues a ruling on Defendant’s renewed

4

request. If, however, Defendant fails to file a renewed request by the August 21, 2014,

5

deadline, Plaintiff and Third Party Defendants shall re-serve their expert reports on or

6

before August 25, 2014.

7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8

DATED: August 14, 2014

9
10
11

Hon. William V. Gallo
U.S. Magistrate Judge

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

7

11CV2060