Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00740/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00740-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

SCOTT SHEWBRIDGE,

NO. CIV. S-05-0740 FCD EFB

Plaintiff,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

EL DORADO IRRIGATION DISTRICT,

a municipal corporation; ANE

DEISTER, DAVID POWELL, THOMAS

CUMPSTON, GEORGE WHEELDON,

GEORGE OSBORNE,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

Plaintiff Scott Shewbridge (“plaintiff”) moves this court

for an order modifying the Pretrial Scheduling Order to permit

extension of the discovery cutoff date, so that plaintiff may

depose defendant George Wheeldon and two non-party witnesses,

Michelle Ludwig and Dee Brookshire. Plaintiff maintains that an

extension of time is necessary because Mr. Wheeldon fell ill

before his originally scheduled deposition, and after numerous

attempts, the process server was unable to locate and serve the

Case 2:05-cv-00740-FCD-EFB Document 34 Filed 09/12/06 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

1 Because oral argument will not be of material assistance,

the court orders this matter submitted on the briefs. See E.D.

Cal. Local Rule 78-230(h).

2

two non-party witnesses in advance of their noticed depositions. 

Defendants oppose plaintiff’s motion only as it concerns the two

non-party witnesses.1 With respect to defendant Wheeldon,

defense counsel stipulates to his deposition provided the court

extends the discovery cutoff date. 

A pretrial order “shall not be modified except upon a

showing of good cause.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b). The district

court may modify the pretrial schedule “if it cannot reasonably

be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.” 

Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir.

1992) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 16, advisory committee’s notes

(1983 amendment)). The “good cause” standard set forth in Rule

16 primarily focuses upon the diligence of the party requesting

the amendment. “Although the existence or degree of prejudice to

the party opposing the modification might supply additional

reasons to deny a motion, the focus of the inquiry is upon the

moving party’s reasons for seeking modification.” Id.

Plaintiff seeks an extension of discovery because, despite

efforts to do so, he was unable to serve and depose Ms. Ludwig

and Ms. Brookshire before the close of discovery. Ms. Ludwig and

Ms. Brookshire were colleagues of plaintiff at the time he worked

for defendant El Dorado Irrigation District. Each claims to have

witnessed at least one incident of plaintiff engaging in improper

workplace behavior, which they documented in writing for their

superiors. Defendants have offered the written statements in

Case 2:05-cv-00740-FCD-EFB Document 34 Filed 09/12/06 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

3

support of their pending motion for summary judgment, currently

set for hearing on September 29, 2006. 

Plaintiff originally noticed Ms. Ludwig and Ms. Brookshire’s

depositions for August 1, 2006, and first tried to serve them on

July 15, 2006. Plaintiff attempted service on them thereafter

approximately seven times each, over a two-week period, but the

process server was unable to make contact with them at their home

addresses. The attempts at service were finally cancelled on

August 2, 2006. Discovery closed in this case on August 7, 2006,

per the Pretrial Scheduling Order, dated August 18, 2005.

Defendant argues that plaintiff cannot demonstrate good

cause for an extension of time because plaintiff waited until the

very end of a year-long discovery period to attempt to depose

these witnesses. While perhaps risky, there is nothing improper

about conducting discovery near the end of the discovery period. 

Here, plaintiff noticed the depositions within the allowed

discovery period and made a good faith effort to serve the

witnesses a reasonable amount of time in advance, and thus,

plaintiff has demonstrated good cause for a limited extension of

discovery.

Furthermore, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permit

discovery regarding “any matter, not privileged, which is

relevant to the subject matter” of the litigation. See Fed. R.

Civ. P. 26(b)(1). In their motion for summary judgment,

defendants rely on the signed statements of Ms. Ludwig and Ms.

Brookshire. As such, their depositions certainly might yield

information relevant to this case, and plaintiff should be

entitled to an extension of time to attempt to obtain that

Case 2:05-cv-00740-FCD-EFB Document 34 Filed 09/12/06 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

4

information. 

Because plaintiff may wish to use information obtained in

the subject depositions in opposition to defendants’ motion for

summary judgment, the extension of discovery will necessitate a

resetting of the motion for summary judgment and other dates, as

set forth below. Additionally, while defendants have already

submitted their moving papers, the court will allow defendants

time to file a supplemental memorandum of points and authorities

in support of their motion in light of the additional discovery,

should they choose to do so.

In sum, with respect to the requested depositions, it is the

court’s understanding that defendants’ counsel has stipulated to

produce defendant Wheeldon for deposition once he is well; 

pursuant to this order, defense counsel shall produce him within

the new discovery deadline, as set forth below. Having found

good cause, discovery is extended for the limited purpose of

taking the depositions of Michelle Ludwig, Dee Brookshire and

defendant Wheeldon.

CONCLUSION

1. Plaintiff’s motion to reopen discovery for a limited

purpose is GRANTED and the Pretrial Scheduling Order of August

18, 2005 is modified as follows:

a. The discovery cutoff is extended to October 27,

2006 for the limited purpose of allowing the

depositions of Michelle Ludwig, Dee Brookshire and

defendant Wheeldon;

b. The last day to hear dispositive motions is

continued to December 1, 2006;

Case 2:05-cv-00740-FCD-EFB Document 34 Filed 09/12/06 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

2 Due to the court’s unavailability and trial schedule, the

trial date in this case would have been reset in any event.

5

c. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is

continued to December 1, 2006, at 10:00 a.m. 

Defendants may file and serve a supplemental

memorandum of points and authorities addressing

the deposition testimony on or before November 3,

2006. Plaintiff’s opposition papers shall be

filed and served on or before November 17, 2006. 

Defendants’ reply papers shall be filed and served

on or before November 27, 2006.

d. The deadline for filing a Joint Final Pretrial

Statement is RESET to February 23, 2007;

d. The Final Pretrial Conference is RESET to March 9,

2007 at 2:30 p.m.;

e. The Trial is RESET to May 22, 2007 at 9:00 a.m.2

2. All other dates set forth in the Pretrial Scheduling

Order shall remain unchanged.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 12, 2006

/s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-00740-FCD-EFB Document 34 Filed 09/12/06 Page 5 of 5