Olivas et al v. United States of America et al
Filing
43
ORDER Denying Plaintiffs' Motion To Modify The Scheduling Order (Re Doc. 35 ). Signed by Magistrate Judge William McCurine, Jr on 3/25/2013. (mdc)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and )
)
DOES 1-20,
)
)
Defendants,
)
ELOY OLIVAS and ELVIRA
OLIVAS,
Case No. 11cv2606-WQH (WMc)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION TO MODIFY THE
SCHEDULING ORDER
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Introduction
This case involves the alleged assault of Plaintiff Eloy Olivas by Defendant
Jones, a United States Customs and Border Protection officer, at the Calexico-East
Port of Entry. On January 22, 2013, the Court held a telephonic conference to address
a discovery dispute regarding Defendant Jones’ obligation to respond to Plaintiffs’
written discovery requests. After hearing from counsel, the Court ordered the parties
to brief whether or not discovery can be served on a party that has yet to appear in an
action by way of answer and whether or not the filing of a motion to dismiss
constitutes an appearance by the filing party.
Arguments
Plaintiffs contend the Court should extend the discovery cut-off date and
11cv2606-WQH (WMc)
1
permit Defendant Jones to respond to the written discovery. Plaintiffs deposed
2
Defendant Jones on September 27, 2012, but contend new information has arisen that
3
requires Plaintiffs to seek follow-up information through written discovery.
4
Defendants contend Plaintiffs’ written discovery requests for Defendant Jones are
5
untimely, Plaintiffs had adequate time to comply with the Court’s Scheduling Order,
6
and Plaintiffs should have raised this issue before the discovery cutoff. Both parties
7
claim potential prejudice: Plaintiffs claim they will be prejudiced if Defendant Jones
8
does not respond to their discovery requests whereas Defendants claim they will be
9
prejudiced if the Court reopens discovery. Although both parties agree Plaintiffs are
10
“stuck between a rock and a hard place,” they disagree over who is responsible for
11
Plaintiffs’ predicament.
12
Applicable Law
13
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 sets forth the framework for the Court and
14
parties to manage the pretrial and discovery phase of a civil case in preparation for
15
trial. The Court may modify the scheduling order for good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P.
16
16(b)(4). To find good cause, the Court must consider the diligence of the party
17
seeking the extension. See Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc. 975 F.2d 604, 609
18
(9th Cir. 1992) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 Advisory Committee Notes (1983
19
amendment)). To find diligence, Courts consider the modification-seeking party’s
20
diligence in complying with the scheduling order, including the party’s participation
21
in creating the scheduling order and the party’s diligence in remedying non-
22
compliance or potential non-compliance with the scheduling order. See Masterpiece
23
Leaded Windows Corp. v. Joslin, No. 08-CV-0765, 2009 WL 1456418, *2 (S.D. Cal.
24
May 22, 2009). Also, courts consider the cause of the party’s inability to comply with
25
the scheduling order. See Id. If the court determines the moving party was not
26
diligent, the inquiry ends. Johnson, 975 F.2d at 604.
27
Although the focus of the Court’s inquiry is on the modification-seeking party’s
28
diligence, the Court may also consider the prejudice to the party opposing
2
11cv2606-WQH (WMc)
1
modification. Id. Conversely, “[a] party who fails to pursue discovery in the face of
2
a court ordered cut-off cannot plead prejudice from his own inaction.” Rosario v.
3
Livaditis, 963 F.2d 1013 (7th Cir. 1992).
4
Analysis1
5
The Court’s analysis starts with the typical civil action. The plaintiff files a
6
complaint. The defendant files an answer. The Court sets an Early Neutral Evaluation
7
Conference (“ENE”). If the parties do not reach settlement at the ENE, the Court sets
8
a Case Management Conference (“CMC”) and instructs the parties on Rule 26
9
compliance. Following the CMC, the Court issues a Scheduling Order regulating the
10
pretrial and discovery schedule. Generally, a party may not serve discovery before the
11
CMC. The parties engage in discovery until the discovery cutoff set forth in the
12
Scheduling Order. The case is either settled or resolved by trial or dispositive motion
13
practice.
14
The instant case deviated from the norm when Plaintiffs filed a First Amended
15
Complaint (“FAC”) to include Defendant Jones after Plaintiffs and Defendant (United
16
States of America) completed the ENE, Rule 26 compliance, the CMC, and the Court
17
issued the Scheduling Order. The instant case further deviated from the typical case
18
when all Defendants, including Defendant Jones, moved to dismiss the FAC.
19
Essentially, Plaintiffs lost three to four months of the discovery phase in regard to
20
Defedant Jones because discovery began on June 11, 2012 (following the CMC) but
21
Plaintiffs did not file the FAC adding Defendant Jones until September 20, 2012, and
22
did not serve Defendant Jones with the summons and complaint until October 5, 2012.
23
For the following reasons, the Court finds Plaintiffs did not seek written
24
discovery from Defendant Jones with reasonable diligence. First, Plaintiffs should
25
have been more diligent with regard to Defendant Jones in general because Defendant
26
Jones is the principal actor in Plaintiffs’ grievance. Although not specifically named
27
in the original complaint, his actions were described in detail and those actions
28
1
A chronology of relevant events is attached as an appendix to this Order.
3
11cv2606-WQH (WMc)
1
constitute the gravamen of Plaintiffs’ lawsuit. In the original complaint, Plaintiffs
2
allege Defendant Jones pulled Mr. Olivas from his truck and assaulted him. Second,
3
Defendant provided Plaintiffs with Defendant Jones’ actual identity through
4
Defendants’ initial disclosures on June 1, 2012. However, Plaintiffs did not seek leave
5
to amend the complaint to add Defendant Jones until July 27, 2012. Third, Plaintiffs
6
did not move to amend the scheduling order until just before discovery closed. The
7
Court’s rules require the parties to meet and confer and contact Judge McCurine’s
8
chambers before filing a discovery motion. Plaintiffs contacted the Court on January
9
3, 2013 by e-mail to request a January 9, 2012 hearing date. Fourth, as discussed
10
below, Plaintiffs’ counsel waited to serve written discovery until after Defendant
11
Jones joined in Defendants’ motion to dismiss and after Defendant Jones was
12
deposed. By contrast, Plaintiffs could have propounded written discovery on
13
Defendant Jones as soon as Defendant Jones joined the action; Defendant Jones
14
became a party to the action when Judge Hayes granted Plaintiffs leave to file an
15
amended complaint and Defendant Jones joined the action when he was served with
16
the summons and complaint. See Nelson v. Adams USA, Inc., 529 U.S. 460, 465-67
17
(2000).
18
During the January 22, 2013 telephonic conference, the Court identified the
19
importance of the fourth item listed above and asked the parties to address two related
20
questions by letter-brief: May a party serve discovery on a party who has not yet
21
appeared? Does filing a motion to dismiss constitute an appearance? Plaintiffs
22
answered “no” to the first question and “yes” to the second question. Defendants did
23
not fully address the questions. Plaintiffs contend the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
24
precluded them from serving interrogatories, requests for admission, and requests for
25
production of documents on Defendant Jones before Defendant Jones made an
26
appearance. Citing Benny v. Pipes, 799 F.2d 489, 492 (9th Cir. 1986), Plaintiffs
27
appear to contend a court must have jurisdiction over a party before discovery may
28
commence against that party. In Benny, the Ninth Circuit considered the breadth of
4
11cv2606-WQH (WMc)
1
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 in regards to a default judgment entered against the
2
defendants for their failure to timely answer the plaintiff’s complaint. See Id.
3
However, Plaintiffs’ reliance on Benny is misplaced because Benny did not
4
contemplate whether a party may serve discovery on a party who has not yet appeared.
5
Moreover, Plaintiffs’ general proposition that the Federal Rules precluded them
6
from seeking written discovery from Defendant Jones before Defendant Jones
7
appeared fails for several reasons. First, the federal rules do not expressly forbid such
8
an action but rather preclude parties from serving discovery before complying with
9
Rule 26. Second, the parties complied with Rule 26 and the Court issued a Scheduling
10
Order which opened discovery. Third, the Federal Rules do not support Plaintiffs’
11
contention that a party joined after discovery has begun is not yet a “party” within the
12
meaning of Rules 33, 34, and 36. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 (D) (“A party that is first
13
served or otherwise joined after the Rule 26(f) conference must make the initial
14
disclosures within 30 days after being served or joined, unless a different time is set
15
by stipulation or court order[]”)(emphasis added). Fourth, If Plaintiffs actually
16
thought Defendant Jones was not a “party” within the meaning of Rules 33, 34, and
17
36, Plaintiffs could have either (a) subpoenaed the same information under Rule 45,
18
or (b) moved the Court to extend the January 2, 2013 discovery cut-off in anticipation
19
of (1) the need to initiate additional discovery within a sufficient period of time in
20
advance of the cut-off date (early December, 2012) and (2) Defendants’ prerogative
21
to file a responsive pleading at any time within 60 days of the October 5, 2012 service
22
of the summons and complaint. Even assuming Plaintiff could not propound written
23
discovery on Defendant Jones until Defendant Jones filed a responsive pleading,
24
Plaintiffs could have moved for court-ordered expedited discovery immediately
25
following service of the summons and complaint.2
26
27
2
Where a party seeks formal discovery prior to the Rule 26(f) conference, the court
applies a “good cause” standard. Semitool, Inc. v. Tokyo Electron America, 208 F.R.D.
28 273 (N.D. Cal. 2002). “Good cause may be found where the need for expedited
discovery, in consideration of the administration of justice, outweighs the prejudice to the
5
11cv2606-WQH (WMc)
1
Although Plaintiffs proposed a reasonable, expedited discovery schedule for the
2
proposed discovery, Plaintiffs failed to diligently seek leave to amend the complaint
3
to add Defendant Jones, failed to diligently serve Defendant Jones once the Court
4
granted leave, and failed to diligently seek written discovery or move to extend the
5
discovery cut-off.
6
Moreover, the Court has reviewed Defendant Jones’ deposition transcript and
7
the written discovery served on Defendant Jones and finds Plaintiffs’ claim of
8
prejudice is not well taken. Indeed, Plaintiffs deposed Defendant Jones for two hours
9
on the topics included in the written discovery. The Court finds Plaintiffs have failed
10
to demonstrate good cause to modify the Scheduling Order. Plaintiffs were not
11
diligent and, therefore, the Court’s inquiry ends. See Johnson, 975 F.2d at 604.
12
13
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: March 25, 2013
14
15
Hon. William McCurine, Jr.
U.S. Magistrate Judge,
U.S. District Court
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
responding party.” Id. at 276.
6
11cv2606-WQH (WMc)
1
2
Appendix
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Chronology:
November 8,
2011
May 2, 2012
May 18, 2012
June 1, 2012
June 15, 2012
June 19, 2012
July 27, 2012
August 31, 2012
September 10,
2012
September 20,
2012
October 5, 2012
December 4,
2012
December 14,
2012
December 20,
2012
January 2, 2013
Plaintiff filed initial complaint
Court conducted Early Neutral Evaluation Conference
Deadline to complete Rule 26(f) exchange
Plaintiff learned of Defendant Jones’ identity
Court conducted Case Management Conference
Court issued Scheduling Order
Plaintiffs filed motion for leave to amend complaint to add
Defendant Jones
Deadline to amend the pleadings to add new parties
Court granted motion to add Defendant Jones
Plaintiffs filed First Amended Complaint
Plaintiffs served Defendant Jones a summons and complaint
by mail
Defendant Jones and Defendant United States of America
moved to dismiss the first amended complaint
Plaintiffs served written discovery on Defendant Jones
Counsel met and conferred regarding Defendant Jones
anticipated response to the discovery requests
Discovery cutoff
25
26
27
28
7
11cv2606-WQH (WMc)
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?