Crouse v. Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse, Inc. et al

Filing 28

ORDER denying 27 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge William V. Gallo on 8/14/2014. (av1)

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

PATRICIA CROUSE,
v.

Plaintiff,

LOWE’S HOME IMPROVEMENT
WAREHOUSE, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

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

Civil No. 13-CV-1274-JM (WVG)
ORDER DENYING JOINT MOTION
TO EXTEND DATE FOR
COMPLETION OF DEPOSITIONS
OF DEFENDANT’S EXPERTS
[DOC. NO. 27]

18
19

Pending before the Court is the parties’ Joint Motion to Extend the Date for

20

Completion of Depositions of Defendant’s Experts. (Doc. No. 27.) Finding no good cause

21

to grant the extension request, the Court hereby DENIES the parties’ Joint Motion.

22

I. BACKGROUND

23

On June 9, 2014, the parties filed a Joint Motion to Continue the Mandatory

24

Settlement Conference (“MSC”) and Expert Disclosure Date. (Doc. No. 25.) In their June

25

9, 2014, Joint Motion, the parties requested that the Court continue the MSC so that they

26

could complete the depositions of Plaintiff’s non-retained and treating surgeon, Dr. Eric

27

Stark, and Defendant’s retained expert, Dr. Christopher Behr. Id. at 2. The parties noted that

28

the “testimony of Dr. Stark and Dr. Behr are crucial to the parties’ abilities to evaluate and
1

13CV1274

1

understand the causal connection between Plaintiff’s knee replacement surgery and the

2

injuries sustained as a result of the subject incident. Completion of the depositions of Dr.

3

Stark and Dr. Behr will allow the parties to determine their respective positions pertaining

4

to the disputed knee replacement surgery, which will promote more meaningful settlement

5

discussions at the settlement conference.” Id. at 2-3. The Court granted the parties’ request

6

to continue the MSC. (Doc. No. 26 at 1-2.)

7

The Court also stated that, because it granted the parties’ request to continue the MSC,

8

they would have ample time to complete the depositions of their experts prior to the MSC.

9

(Doc. No. 26 at 2.) Therefore, the Court denied the parties’ request to continue the deadline

10
11

to exchange expert reports. Id.
II. RELEVANT LAW

12

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

13

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

14

amend the pleadings, complete discovery, and file motions.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b)(3)(A). The

15

scheduling order “controls the course of the action unless the court modifies it[ ]” and Rule

16

“16 is to be taken seriously.” Rule 16(d); Janicki Logging Co. v. Mateer, 42 F.3d 561, 566

17

(9th Cir.1994). As the Eastern District of California has stated, parties must “diligently

18

attempt to adhere to [the court’s] schedule throughout the subsequent course of the

19

litigation.” Jackson v. Laureate, Inc., 186 F.R.D. 605, 607 (E.D.Cal.1999). “A scheduling

20

order ‘is not a frivolous piece of paper, idly entered, which can be cavalierly disregarded

21

without peril.’” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 610 (9th Cir.1992)

22

(quoting Gestetner Corp. v. Case Equip. Co., 108 F.R.D. 138, 141 (D.Me.1985)).

23

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

24

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

25

moving party.” Noyes v. Kelly Servs., 488 F.3d 1163, 1174 n. 6 (9th Cir.2007); citing

26

Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. In Johnson, the Ninth circuit explained,

27
28

... 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
2

13CV1274

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

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.
Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609.
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 been reasonably
foreseen or anticipated at the time of the Rule 16 Scheduling conference ...” Jackson, 186
F.R.D. at 608, emphasis added.

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

III. RULING
The Court finds that the parties’ Joint Motion fails to demonstrate any good cause for
granting an extension of the expert discovery cutoff date. The only reason provided to the
Court in support of the extension request is that Plaintiff would like to defer the costs
associated with deposing all defense experts prior to the MSC. (Doc. No. 27 at 2.) As this
Court stated in its June 10, 2014, Order, the Court appreciates that the parties seek to avoid
certain litigation costs. (Doc. No. 26 at 2.) However, the Court granted the parties’ June 9,
2014, Joint Motion, in an effort to assist the parties in avoiding the costs associated with
attending the MSC without a full assessment of the connection between Plaintiff’s injuries
and her knee replacement surgery. (Doc. No. 26 at 2; citing Doc. No. 25 at 3.) Plaintiff filed
this lawsuit and must be prepared to fully litigate her case, and to adhere to the Court’s
scheduling order. Therefore, because the parties have not demonstrated good cause to grant
the extension request, the Court hereby DENIES the parties’ Joint Motion.

22
23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: August 14, 2014

25
26

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

27
28
3

13CV1274