Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00691/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00691-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 340
Nature of Suit: Marine Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1442 Petition for Removal

---

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 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MICHAEL MORENO, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

ROSS ISLAND SAND & GRAVEL CO., 

et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:13-cv-00691-KJM-KJN 

ORDER 

This matter is before the court on plaintiff Jared Mitchell’s motion to modify the 

scheduling order. ECF No. 106. The motion was submitted without a hearing, and is now 

GRANTED. 

I. BACKGROUND 

Jared Mitchell and Michael Moreno were injured in a boating accident. In this 

action they seek to recover damages from Ross Island Sand & Gravel, Co., the only remaining 

defendant. Mitchell’s injuries included damage to his right hand, for which he has received 

treatment from a plastic surgeon and physical therapy. See MacLaughlin Decl. Ex. A, at 4–5, 6, 

9. ECF No. 106-2. He continues to receive treatment for pain and limitations in his hand. See id.

Ex. A, at 12–14. 

Case 2:13-cv-00691-KJM-KJN Document 110 Filed 05/22/15 Page 1 of 3
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 

2

By previous order, “[a]ll expert discovery” was to be “completed by October 24, 

2014.” Status (Pretrial Sched.) Order, Sept. 11, 2013, at 4, ECF No. 50 (emphasis omitted). That 

order provided “that pursuant to Rule 16(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Status 

(Pretrial Scheduling) Order shall not be modified except by leave of court upon a showing of 

good cause.” Id. at 10. The same order also noted the consequences of neglecting the expert 

disclosure schedule, warning the parties that a “[f]ailure . . . to comply with the disclosure 

schedule . . . in all likelihood will preclude that party from calling the expert witness at the time 

of trial,” id. at 3, and required a party seeking to offer testimony of an unlisted expert witness to 

show “(a) that the necessity for the witness could not have been reasonably anticipated at the time 

the list was proffered; (b) that the court and opposing counsel were promptly notified upon 

discovery of the witness; and (c) that the witness was promptly made available for deposition,” id.

In January 2015, Mitchell’s attorney learned for the first time that Mitchell had 

sought treatment from Dr. Toby Johnson, M.D. MacLaughlin Decl. ¶ 4. On January 29, 2015, 

counsel submitted plaintiffs’ third supplemental disclosure of expert testimony, adding Dr. 

Johnson to the list of potential witnesses. Id. Ex. B. Counsel avers Dr. Johnson is serving solely 

as Mitchell’s treating physician, that his office played no role in the decision to seek treatment 

from Dr. Johnson, and that his office’s sole communication with Dr. Johnson was to obtain the 

physician’s file in February 2015. Id. ¶ 5. Ross Island did not agree to submit a stipulated 

request to amend the scheduling order, and Mitchell filed the current motion. Id. ¶ 6. Ross Island 

filed an opposition, ECF No. 107, and Mitchell replied, ECF No. 108. 

II. LEGAL STANDARD 

A pretrial scheduling order may be modified if a party, despite its diligence, cannot 

reasonably be expected to meet the order’s deadlines. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 

975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). When a party requests changes to the scheduling order, the 

court’s inquiry focuses on that party’s honest attempt to comply; he must demonstrate his 

“diligence,” the common antonym for carelessness, questionable strategy, and delay. See, e.g., 

Calderon v. Target Corp., No. 12-1781, 2013 WL 4401430, at *7 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2013); 

Alibaba.com H.K. Ltd. v. P.S. Prods., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36749, at *5–6 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 

Case 2:13-cv-00691-KJM-KJN Document 110 Filed 05/22/15 Page 2 of 3
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 

3

2012); Eckert Cold Storage, Inc. v. Behl, 943 F. Supp. 1230, 1233 (E.D. Cal. 1996). Prejudice to 

another party may reinforce the court’s decision to deny leave to amend, but Rule 16’s standard 

“primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” Johnson, 975 F.3d at 

609. The court’s decision is one of discretion. Miller v. Safeco Title Ins. Co., 758 F.2d 364, 369 

(9th Cir. 1985). 

Although Mitchell’s motion is one to modify the court’s status (pretrial 

scheduling) order, he also argues Dr. Johnson should be allowed to testify at trial despite his 

omission from the original witness list. See Mot. Am. 3–5 (citing Roberts v. Roadway Exp., Inc., 

149 F.3d 1098, 1108–09 (10th Cir. 1998) (reviewing an order denying a motion for mistrial; 

determining whether the district court abused its discretion in allowing testimony not specified in 

a pretrial order)). Here no final pretrial conference has been conducted. The court therefore 

evaluates Mitchell’s request for good cause. 

Mitchell’s counsel disclosed Dr. Johnson’s treatment and forwarded Mitchell’s file 

soon after learning Mitchell had sought additional treatment. No evidence suggests strategic 

delay, an attempt at surprise, carelessness, or even that Mitchell’s decision to see Dr. Johnson was 

connected to this lawsuit at all. Ross Island suggests Mitchell “is ‘picking and choosing’ which 

doctors to disclose,” Opp’n 7; far more plausibly Mitchell saw a new doctor after receiving a 

referral, and didn’t think to tell his lawyer, see id. (citing Mitchell’s medical records). In any 

event, trial is several months away, the pending motions for summary judgment do not address 

damages or the extent of Mitchell’s injuries, and Ross Island may mitigate any disadvantage by 

deposing Dr. Johnson if it chooses, as ordered below. 

III. CONCLUSION 

The motion is GRANTED. Ross Island may conduct the deposition of Dr. Toby 

Johnson, M.D., before the final pretrial conference, currently set for July 16, 2015. This order 

disposes of ECF No. 106. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: May 22, 2015. 

Case 2:13-cv-00691-KJM-KJN Document 110 Filed 05/22/15 Page 3 of 3