Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-00082/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-00082-5/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

Deniz Bolbol, et al.,

Plaintiff(s),

 v.

Ringling Brothers and Barnum and 

Bailey Circus , et al.,

Defendant(s).

 /

NO. C 04-00082 JW

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’

REQUEST TO REOPEN FACT

DISCOVERY

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs, a group of animal rights activists brought this action against Defendants Feld

Entertainment, Inc., dba Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus ("Circus") and the San Jose Arena

Management Company, LLC, dba and sued herein as HP Pavilion Management (“HP Pavilion

Management”) (collectively “Defendants”) in January 2004, under 48 U.S.C. § 1983 (claiming violation of

their First Amendment rights under the United States Constitution), and CAL. CONST. art I, § 2(a)

(California's Liberty of Speech Clause), and CAL. PENAL CODE §§ 602.1, 837, and 847 (false arrest). 

On August 22, 2005, this Court held a hearing on Plaintiffs’ motion for modification of the

preliminary injunction governing Plaintiffs’ conduct grounds of the HP Pavilion. issued on August 24, 2004. 

The Court modified the preliminary injunction on August 23, 2005. Presently before this Court is Plaintiffs'

request to reopen fact discovery, couched as “miscellaneous administrative request.” (Plaintiffs

Miscellaneous Administrative Request to Reopen Fact Discovery, hereafter, “Motion”; See Docket Item

No. 162.) 

Case 5:04-cv-00082-JW Document 174 Filed 10/13/05 Page 1 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

II. STANDARDS

Once the district court has filed a pretrial scheduling order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 16, it "shall not be modified except upon a showing of good cause." Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b);

Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992) ("[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. . . . The district court may modify the pretrial schedule "if it cannot reasonably be met despite the

diligence of the party seeking the extension.") 

Additional factors used by the court in deciding whether to reopen discovery, may include: (1)

whether trial is imminent, (2) whether the request is opposed, (3) whether the non-moving party would be

prejudiced, (4) whether the moving party was diligent in obtaining discovery within the guidelines

established by the court, (5) the foreseeability of the need for additional discovery in light of the time

allowed for discovery by the district court, and (6) the likelihood that the discovery will lead to relevant

evidence. U.S. ex rel. Schumer v. Hughes Aircraft Co., 63 F.3d 1512, 1526 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. granted

in part, 519 U.S. 926, 117 S.Ct. 293, 136 L.Ed.2d 212, vacated on other grounds, 520 U.S. 939, 117

S.Ct. 1871, 138 L.Ed.2d 135 (1997), citing, Smith v. United States, 834 F.2d 166, 169 (10th Cir. 1987). 

Finally, the decision whether to reopen discovery lies solely in the trial court's discretion. U.S. ex rel.

Schumer, 63 F.3d at 1526.

III. DISCUSSION

As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that Plaintiffs have improperly filed this request as a

“miscellaneous administrative” matter pursuant to Rule 7-11 of the Civil Local Rules. Rule 7-11 covers

requests “not otherwise governed by a federal statute, Federal or local rules ...”. Civ. L.R. 7-11. A

request to reopen fact discovery is governed by Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as

discovery is part of a pretrial scheduling order. The Court also notes that while maintaining that the request

is miscellaneous, Plaintiffs have filed multiple “replies” to Defendants’ oppositions, something clearly not

permitted when a party files a motion for administrative relief under Rule 7-11. Nevertheless, the Court will

address Plaintiffs’ motion on the merits.

Case 5:04-cv-00082-JW Document 174 Filed 10/13/05 Page 2 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

3

Plaintiffs contend that “good cause” exists to reopen discovery in order that they may: 1) obtain

discovery as to their second amended complaint; 2) obtain discovery regarding the purportedly “new”

allegations made in the declarations of HP Pavilion and Feld Entertainment employees concerning Plaintiffs’

improper behavior, in opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion to modify the preliminary injunction; and 3) obtain

discovery as to Plaintiff Alfredo Kuba’s settlement of this action. (Motion at 3.)

A. Discovery as to Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint

On June 10, 2005, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ application to file a Second Amended Complaint

(SAC) to add conspiracy allegations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (See Docket Item No. 117.) Specially the

Court found that: 1) Plaintiffs’ newly proposed allegations regarding conspiracy under 42 U.S..C. § 1983

were not that different from the allegations that already existed in Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint

(FAC), rather, they essentially fleshed out those allegations; and 2) Plaintiffs merely sought to conform their

Complaint to newly discovered evidence. (Order at 7.) For these reasons, the Court found the prejudice

that Defendants will suffer as a result of such additions was minimal. Id. Plaintiffs now contend that little

discovery has been taken on this issue and seek to reopen fact discovery to obtain written and deposition

discovery concerning any policies promulgated but the City of San Jose on this issue and the circumstances

of their adoption. (Motion at 3.) 

Defendants oppose this request, pointing out that the SAC was only filed in order to confirm to

evidence already developed during discovery. As stated above, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ application to

file the SAC because Plaintiffs merely sought to conform their Complaint to newly discovered evidence. 

This means that Plaintiffs had already obtained evidence sufficient to allege conspiracy allegations. Even if it

is true that they have done little discovery on the issue, it does not appear to this Court that Plaintiffs have

been diligent in obtaining discovery since the Court issued its Order granting Plaintiffs leave to amend in

June of this year. It has been a little over four months since the Order and Plaintiffs are just now raising this

issue with the Court. Plaintiffs’ request makes no mention of whether despite reasonable diligence, Plaintiffs

have been unable to seek any additional evidence or why Plaintiffs have waited until now to seek an

extension. The Court finds good cause does not exist to reopen discovery based on the conspiracy

allegation added in the SAC. Plaintiffs’ request is DENIED on this basis.

Case 5:04-cv-00082-JW Document 174 Filed 10/13/05 Page 3 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

4

B. Discovery as to the HP Pavilion and Feld Entertainment Employees’ Declarations

Plaintiffs contend that at the August 22, 2005, hearing on Plaintiffs’ motion for modification of the

preliminary injunction, Defendant HP Pavilion Management raised allegations of Plaintiffs’ improper

behavior toward certain HP Pavilion and Feld Employees, and other unidentified patrons which have not

been raised before. Plaintiffs contend that they are entitled to discover the identities of these employees and

patrons and the nature of their allegations against the individual Plaintiffs.

Contrary to Plaintiffs’ contention, allegations of Plaintiffs’ conduct toward Defendants’ employees

and patrons are not new. These allegations were raised in the employees’ declarations of August of 2004

in opposition to Plaintiffs’ original motion for a preliminary injunction. These same allegations were

referenced in the Defendants’ oppositions to Plaintiffs’ motion for modification of the preliminary injunction

on August 2005. (HP Pavilion Opp’n at 4.) Plaintiffs were served these statements prior to when

discovery first closed on December 31, 2004. Plaintiffs contend that because there was an exchange in

representation, new counsels have had no actual opportunity to obtain relevant information about these

claims. However, Plaintiffs do not account for the Court whether they have been diligent in obtaining the

relevant discovery within the guidelines established by the Court. Plaintiffs’ request to reopen fact

discovery on this basis is DENIED for failure to show good cause. 

C. Discovery as to Kuba’s Settlement

Plaintiffs contend as of June 2005, they learned that Defendant HP Pavilion is planning on bring a

dispositive motion against Kuba for allegedly breaching a settlement agreement he signed while represented

by counsel, they are entitled to discovery on the factual basis for which HP Pavilion intends to move for

dismissal. (Motion at 3.) Plaintiffs do not point to, and the Court does not see, what discovery is needed

with respect to this issue since the only issue is whether Kuba is bound by the written settlement agreement

which was executed on March 11, 2005. Plaintiffs contend that they need to know the facts underlying HP

Pavilion’s allegation that the agreement is binding on Kuba in order to oppose the motion. (Motion at 3.) 

Whatever facts Plaintiffs believe they need in order to “oppose” the motion will be evident in HP Pavilion’s

moving papers. Plaintiffs will have ample opportunity to argue against whatever basis HP Pavilion will raise

in their motion via Plaintiffs’ opposition.

Case 5:04-cv-00082-JW Document 174 Filed 10/13/05 Page 4 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

5

Additionally, it has been nine months since the agreement was executed and eight months since

Kuba allegedly failed to join the other plaintiffs in their Notice of Dismissal based on the settlement, both

actions completed before final discovery cut-off. Even if Plaintiffs did not learn of HP Pavilion’s intention to

file for dismissal until June 2005, three months have passed without any request to reopen discovery until

now. Plaintiffs have failed to show that they have been diligent at obtaining information necessary to

defend any action against Kuba as the result of his alleged breach. Plaintiffs’ request to reopen fact

discovery on this basis is DENIED.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ Request to Reopen Fact Discovery.

Dated: October 13, 2005 /s/ James Ware 

JAMES WARE

United States District Judge

Case 5:04-cv-00082-JW Document 174 Filed 10/13/05 Page 5 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO:

Christine L. Garcia christine@animalattorney.com

Frank R. Ubhaus fru@berliner.com

J. Kirk Boyd kirkboyd@aol.com

Jessica Valenzuela Santamaria jvalenzuelasantamaria@mfmlaw.com

Lizbeth Brown lizbethbrown@aol.com

Marwa Elzankaly melzankaly@mfmlaw.com

Nora Valerie Frimann cao.main@sanjoseca.gov

Thomas P. Murphy tpm@berliner.com

Dated: October 13, 2005 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: /s/ JW Chambers 

Ronald L. Davis

Courtroom Deputy

Case 5:04-cv-00082-JW Document 174 Filed 10/13/05 Page 6 of 6