Holmes v. Estock et al

Filing 189

Order Granting Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Daubert Motion (Doc. No. 187 ). Plaintiff may file one omnibus motion, not to exceed twenty-five (25) pages, asserting all Daubert challenges on or before 7/14/23. Defendant's o pposition not to exceed 25 pages due by 7/28/23. No reply briefs accepted. The Court will hear oral argument on Plaintiffs Daubert motion at the Final Pretrial Conference, 9/11/2023 at 01:30 PM before Judge Michael M. Anello.Signed by Judge Michael M. Anello on 5/25/23. (jmo)

Case 3:16-cv-02458-MMA-BLM Document 189 Filed 05/25/23 PageID.2976 Page 1 of 2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

CHARLES HOLMES,
Plaintiff,

11

14

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE
TO FILE A DAUBERT MOTION

vs.

12
13

Case No.: 16-cv-2458-MMA (BLM)

ESTOCK, et al.,
Defendants.

[Doc. No. 187]

15
16
17

Plaintiff Charles Holmes, a California inmate, brings this civil rights action

18

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of his Eighth Amendment right to

19

adequate medical care. On June 16, 2022, the Court appointed Plaintiff Pro Bono

20

Counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) and General Order 596. See Doc. No. 169.

21

Plaintiff now moves the Court for leave to file a motion challenging Defendants’ experts

22

pursuant to Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 582 (1993).

23

Pursuant to the Rule 16 Scheduling Order and the undersigned’s Civil Chambers

24

Rules, Daubert motions were due no later than October 4, 2019. See Doc. No. 93; Civ.

25

Chambers R. IX fn. 3. Although Plaintiff seeks to file a Daubert motion more than three

26

years late, his prior counsel’s failures, including his failure to file a Daubert motion and

27

timely oppose summary judgment, are well-documented. See Doc. Nos. 157, 168.

28

Further, the record demonstrates that since appointment, Plaintiff’s current counsel have
-1-

16-cv-2458-MMA (BLM)

Case 3:16-cv-02458-MMA-BLM Document 189 Filed 05/25/23 PageID.2977 Page 2 of 2

1

been diligent in pursuing discovery and readying this case for trial. Accordingly, the

2

Court finds good cause to modify the Rule 16 Scheduling Order to permit Plaintiff to file

3

a Daubert motion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4) (“A schedule may be modified only for

4

good cause and with the judge’s consent.”); see also Valentine v. Nielsen, No. 16cv2357-

5

W(KSC), 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39285, at *12 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 9, 2018) (“Parties may be

6

able to satisfy the ‘good cause’ standard if they can show that a prior attorney’s actions

7

were ‘grossly negligent.’”) (quoting Community Dental Servs. v. Tani, 282 F.3d 1164,

8

1168 (9th Cir. 2002)). The Court therefore GRANTS Plaintiff’s unopposed motion and

9

SETS the following schedule and limitations:

10
11
12
13

1.

Plaintiff may file one omnibus motion, not to exceed twenty-five (25) pages,

asserting all Daubert challenges on or before July 14, 2023.
2.

Defendants’ opposition, not to exceed twenty-five (25) pages, is due on or

before July 28, 2023.

14

3.

No reply briefs will be accepted.

15

4.

The Court will hear oral argument on Plaintiff’s Daubert motion at the Final

16
17
18

Pretrial Conference, September 11, 2023 at 1:30 p.m.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 25, 2023

19

_____________________________

20

HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO
United States District Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-2-

16-cv-2458-MMA (BLM)