Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02730/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02730-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

This motion was determined to be suitable for decision *

without oral argument. L.R. 78-230(h). 

Plaintiffs “ask the Court to take Judicial Notice of the 1

motion for a similar expansion of the Scheduling Order filed by

Fonda Whitfield . . . in the ‘sister’ case related hereto, CASE NO.

CIV S-04-2729 GEB (JFM).” The request is granted. All references

to the Plaintiffs’ motion and Defendants’ opposition refer to those

filed in related case 2:04-cv-2729-GEB-JFM. 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALAN FEASTER, GLORIA FEASTER, and )

THE ESTATE OF DURRELL FEASTER, by )

Alan Feaster and Gloria Feaster, )

) 2:04-cv-2730-GEB-JFM

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. ) ORDER*

)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA; STATE )

OF CALIFORNIA YOUTH AUTHORITY; )

JERRY HARPER; WALTER ALLEN III; )

JEFF HARADA; DR. PARAGUAN; and )

HAMID SIAL, M.D., )

)

Defendants. )

)

Plaintiffs move to modify the Status (Pretrial Scheduling)

Order (“Scheduling Order”) to extend the deadline for Plaintiffs to

“seek leave to amend their Complaint for the purpose of . . . naming

Doe defendants,” and to extend the deadlines for expert disclosures,

discovery, and dispositive motions. (Pls.’ Mot. at 2.) Defendants 1

Case 2:04-cv-02730-GEB -JFM Document 37 Filed 08/01/06 Page 1 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 All subsequent references to “Rules” are to the Federal 2

Rules of Civil Procedure. 

2

oppose the motion to the extent Plaintiffs seek to modify the

amendment deadline, but do not oppose any of the other requested

modifications to the Scheduling Order. (Defs.’ Opp’n at 2, n.1.) 

The Scheduling Order, which was filed April 30, 2005,

granted Plaintiffs “sixty (60) days . . . to file a motion in which

leave is sought under [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure] 15(a) to file

an Amended Complaint which . . . add[s] a party to this action.”2

(Scheduling Order at 2.) Once a Scheduling Order establishes a

deadline for amendment of the pleadings, modification of that deadline

is governed by the “good cause” standard of Rule 16(b). Johnson v.

Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). The

“good cause” standard primarily considers the diligence of the party

seeking the modification. Id. If the deadline “cannot reasonably be

met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension,” then

“[t]he district court may modify the pretrial schedule.” Id. 

Plaintiffs argue “good cause” exists to modify the

Scheduling Order because Defendants recently produced discovery

documents that revealed “the identities of several potential Doe

defendants . . . .” (Pls.’ Mot. at 5.) Plaintiffs assert they

initially requested these documents in early March 2005, nearly four

months before the amendment deadline, but Defendants objected to their

request and refused to produce any of the documents. (Id. at 2-3.) 

Plaintiffs contend they “acted with diligence in trying to obtain

these documents” by first attempting to resolve the discovery dispute

informally, and when that attempt failed, by filing a motion to

compel. (Id. at 4.) Plaintiffs assert that despite these efforts,

Case 2:04-cv-02730-GEB -JFM Document 37 Filed 08/01/06 Page 2 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Plaintiffs filed their motion to compel before the 3

Magistrate Judge on August 29, 2005. On September 19, 2005, the

Magistrate Judge ordered Defendants to submit the documents for in

camera review. In response, Defendants filed a motion for

reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge’s Order. The motion was

denied on October 4, 2005, and Defendants lodged the documents on

October 21, 2005. 

On December 21, 2005, the Magistrate Judge granted the

motion to compel and ordered Defendants to produce the documents to

Plaintiffs within ten days. Defendants again filed a motion for

reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge’s Order. An Order filed

March 24, 2006, denied the reconsideration motion.

Defendants then sought reconsideration of the Order filed

March 24, 2006. The motion was denied April 27, 2006. Defendants

provided Plaintiffs with some of the documents on May 9, 2006, and

the remaining documents on May 15, 2006. 

3

Defendants intentionally delayed production of the documents until

fourteen months after their initial discovery request and the

“opportunity . . . to amend the Complaint and to add Doe defendants

had expired.” (Id.) Defendants rejoin that they did not 3

intentionally delay production, and that the fourteen month holdup

resulted from their “good faith” attempts to obtain a protective

order. (Defs.’ Opp’n at 3, n.2.) Defendants argue the amendment

deadline in the Scheduling Order should not be modified because

“[w]ithout knowing who (if anyone) Plaintiffs may want to add as

additional defendants, the Court is not in a position to assess any of

the[] factors” considered under “the standard of Rule 15 for motions

for leave to amend a complaint.” (Id. at 3.) 

However, an examination of the Rule 15 standard would be

premature because at this time, Plaintiffs only seek modification of

the amendment deadline in the Scheduling Order to obtain additional

time to file a motion in which leave is sought under Rule 15 to file

an amended complaint identifying the Doe Defendants. See Johnson, 975

F.2d at 608 (“party seeking to amend pleading after date specified in

Case 2:04-cv-02730-GEB -JFM Document 37 Filed 08/01/06 Page 3 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

An Order filed December 21, 2005, dismissed the Doe 4

Defendants from this action because Plaintiffs had not sought leave

to amend their Complaint before the expiration of the amendment

deadline. (Order, December 21, 2005, at 1, n.1.) The dismissal of

the Doe Defendants in that Order is vacated.

4

scheduling order must first show ‘good cause’ for amendment under Rule

16(b), then, if ‘good cause’ [is] shown, the party must demonstrate

that amendment [is] proper under Rule 15"). Plaintiffs assert that

additional time to file such a motion is necessary because, although a

“cursory review of the documents produced by Defendants reveals

. . . the identities of several potential Doe defendants,” Plaintiffs

need “adequate time to review and analyze the documents, notice

depositions, and propound discovery” to determine “how th[e] conduct

[of these persons] . . . relate[s] to the issues herein.” (Id. at 5.) 

Determination of the diligence component of the good cause

standard is a difficult issue here, but confining the analysis to the

parties’ briefs indicates Plaintiffs’ motion should be granted. 

Plaintiffs requested the discovery documents approximately four months

before the amendment deadline, diligently pursued production of the

documents from Defendants, but did not receive the documents until

after the amendment deadline had expired. Under these circumstances,

Plaintiffs have demonstrated good cause exists to modify the amendment

deadline in the Scheduling Order. Therefore, Plaintiffs have until

September 5, 2006, to file a motion in which leave is sought under

Rule 15 to file an Amended Complaint that adds a party or parties to

this action; if leave is not sought as stated, the Doe Defendants will

be automatically dismissed from this action. 

4

In addition, Plaintiffs’ request to modify the deadlines for

expert disclosure, discovery, and dispositive motions is granted since

Case 2:04-cv-02730-GEB -JFM Document 37 Filed 08/01/06 Page 4 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Defendant Harper does not object to the modifications and 5

requests that the deadlines be further extended. (Def. Harper

Resp. at 1-2.) 

The parties are reminded that “[t]he failure of one or 6

more of the parties to participate in the preparation of any joint

document required to be filed in this case does not excuse the

other parties from their obligation to timely file the document in

accordance with this Order. In the event a party fails to

participate as ordered, the party timely submitting the document

shall include a declaration explaining why it was unable to obtain

the cooperation of the other party or parties.” (Scheduling Order

at 7, n.5).

5

Plaintiffs have satisfied the good cause standard and Defendants

failed to object to the requested modifications. However, the new 5

deadlines Plaintiffs propose do not appear workable, particularly if

Plaintiffs successfully move to add a new party. Therefore, the

expert disclosure, discovery, and dispositive motion deadlines in the

Scheduling Order are vacated; a Status Conference is scheduled to

commence at 9:00 a.m. on September 25, 2006. The parties shall file a

joint status report no later than seven (7) days prior to the status

conference.6

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: July 31, 2006

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02730-GEB -JFM Document 37 Filed 08/01/06 Page 5 of 5