Brown v. Gore et al

Filing 145

ORDER Granting 123 Motion to Reopen Discovery and Modifying Scheduling Order; Denying as moot Plaintiff's motion for a new scheduling order. The mandatory settlement conference scheduled before Judge Skomal on December 11, 2013 is Vacated. Signed by Magistrate Judge Bernard G. Skomal on 11/25/2013. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(srm)(jrd)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ROBERT MARK BROWN, II,

Civil
No.

12
13
14
15

12-CV-1938-GPC (BGS)

Plaintiff,
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
REOPEN DISCOVERY AND
MODIFYING SCHEDULING ORDER

v.
DEPUTY #1, DEPUTY SHERIFF; et al.,
Defendant.

16
17

On October 8, 2013, the Court granted Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend his complaint

18

to add Deputy Garcia, Henton, Pierson, Lawson, and Whittaker as Defendants. (Doc. No. 113.)

19

On October 15, 2013, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint adding said Defendants. (Doc.

20

No. 117.) On October 29, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion to reopen discovery and to adopt a new

21

scheduling order. (Doc. No. 123.) Plaintiff requests that discovery be reopened so that he may

22

conduct discovery on the newly added Defendants.(Id. at 2-3.)

23

?A schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge's consent.” Fed. R.

24

Civ. P. 16(b)(4). Generally, in determining whether there is good cause to permit an extension

25

the court will primarily look to: (1) the diligence of the party seeking the extension; but may also

26

consider (2) the explanation for the failure to complete discovery in a timely fashion; and (3)

27

potential prejudice in allowing the extension.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16, advisory committee note of

28

1983; Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604 (9th Cir. 1992).

1

12cv1938-GPC

1

Here, after Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint, he diligently sought an extension

2

of time to complete fact discovery as to the newly added Defendants. Accordingly, the Court

3

finds good cause to reopen discovery. Therefore, the Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion

4

to reopen discovery. Fact discovery is limited, however, to those Defendants whom Plaintiff was

5

granted leave to add as Defendants in this action, which included Deputy Garcia, Henton,

6

Pierson, Lawson and Whittaker. Plaintiff shall not seek discovery beyond these five Defendants.

7

All fact discovery with regards to the newly added Defendants listed above shall be completed

8

on or before January 31, 2014. Completed” means that all discovery under Rules 30-36 of the

9

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and discovery subpoenas under Rule 45 must be initiated a

10

sufficient period of time in advance of the cut-off date, so that it may be completed by the cut-off

11

date, taking into account the times for services, notice, and response as set forth in the Federal

12

Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court expects counsel to make every effort to resolve all disputes

13

without court intervention. Absent advance consent from the Court, all discovery motions must

14

be filed within 30 days of the service of an objection, answer or response which becomes the

15

subject of dispute or the passage of a discovery due date without response or production, and

16

only after counsel have extensively met and conferred and have reached impasse with regard to

17

the particular issue. Discovery motions must be filed must be filed in the manner set forth in

18

Judge Skomal’s Chambers Rules ( see Judge Skomal’s Rules on Discovery Disputes available on

19

the Court’s website).

20

In his motion, Plaintiff also requests that this Court enter a new scheduling order in this

21

case. (Doc. No. 123 at 3.) Plaintiff does not specify why a new scheduling order is necessary, but

22

it appears that Plaintiff’s request is to accommodate the additional discovery that he wishes to

23

complete as to the newly added Defendants. Because the Court has granted Plaintiff’s motion to

24

reopen discovery, Plaintiff’s motion for a new scheduling order is DENIED AS MOOT.

25

Lastly, a mandatory settlement conference is currently scheduled before Judge Skomal on

26

December 11, 2013. (Doc. No. 39 at 3.) Due to the additional discovery that needs to be

27

completed, as well as the numerous motions pending in this case, the Court hereby VACATES

28

the currently scheduled mandatory settlement conference. For the same reasons, the remaining
2

12cv1938-GPC

1

dates and deadlines set forth in the Case Management Conference Order (Doc. No. 39 at 4-6) are

2

hereby VACATED. Following a ruling on any future dispositive motions, counsel for Defendant

3

shall contact the Court to reset the remaining deadlines, if necessary.

4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5

Dated: November 25, 2013
6
7

BERNARD G. SKOMAL
United States Magistrate Judge

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3

12cv1938-GPC