Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00100/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00100-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 362
Nature of Suit: Medical Malpractice
Cause of Action: 28:1346wd Wrongful Death

---

1 

19cv100-L-LL

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 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

BRANDON LEE THOMAS, 

individually, and as successor in interest 

to Decedent Michael Thomas, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Defendant. 

 Case No.: 19cv100-L-LL 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO MODIFY 

SCHEDULING ORDER 

[ECF No. 13] 

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Continue Scheduling Order [ECF 

No. 14] and Defendant’s Response [ECF No. 15]. For the reasons set forth below, the 

Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Plaintiff’s Motion. 

RELEVANT BACKGROUND

On June 14, 2019, the Court issued a Scheduling Order which contained, as pertinent 

here, the following deadlines: 

 Deadline 

Completion of Fact Discovery December 13, 2019 

Expert Designations November 15, 2019 

Rebuttal Expert Designations November 29, 2019 

Expert Disclosures December 20, 2019 

Case 3:19-cv-00100-CAB-LL Document 16 Filed 01/15/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
 2 

19cv100-L-LL

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

Rebuttal Expert Disclosures January 17, 2020 

Completion of Expert Discovery February 21, 2020 

ECF No. 11. 

Despite fact discovery having already closed, Plaintiff has not propounded any 

written discovery and has taken only one deposition. ECF No. 14 at 2. In addition, the 

record shows Plaintiff did not serve expert witness designations until November 21, 2019 

(after being prompted to do so by Defendant). ECF No 15-2 at 2, 4. Further, Plaintiff did 

not (and has not yet) served expert disclosures. See ECF No. 15-2 at 7. 

In explanation, Plaintiff’s lead counsel, Mr. Marcel Stewart asserts he was unaware 

that fact discovery had closed or that Plaintiff had not timely served its expert disclosures 

until he received Defendant’s expert disclosures—after which he reviewed the Court’s 

Scheduling Order. ECF No. 14 at 3. Mr. Stewart attributes this error to a calendaring 

mistake made by an associate attorney who Mr. Stewart claims did not enter the Court’s 

Scheduling Order into the office calendar. Id. at 2. Mr. Stewart asserts this error was further 

compounded because this associate left the firm on November 27, 2019. Id. at 3. 

Plaintiff now belatedly seeks a sixty-day continuance of “the scheduling order 

deadlines[.]” Id. 

ANALYSIS

Once a Rule 16 scheduling order is issued, dates set forth therein may be modified 

only “for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); see also ECF 

No. 11 at 7 (“The dates and times set forth herein will not be modified except for good 

cause shown.”). The Rule 16 good cause standard primarily focuses on the diligence of the 

moving party. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). 

Essentially, “the focus of the inquiry is upon the moving party’s reasons for seeking 

modification.” Id. 

Mr. Stewart argues that “it is common that attorneys rely on their staff to assist with 

matters” and that “it is cognizable that a clerical mishap such as this could occur.” ECF 

Case 3:19-cv-00100-CAB-LL Document 16 Filed 01/15/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
 3 

19cv100-L-LL

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

No. 14 at 4. As the Ninth Circuit has instructed however, “[c]arelessness is not compatible 

with a finding of diligence[.]” Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. 

Plaintiff’s counsel’s failure to properly calendar dates does not set forth good cause 

or excusable neglect to modify the Court’s Scheduling Order. See Wei v. Hawaii, 763 F.2d 

370, 372 (9th Cir. 1985) (counsel’s inadvertent failure to calendar deadline does not 

constitute “good cause”); Andreoli v. Youngevity Int’l, Inc., No. 16-cv-02922-BTM-JLB, 

2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 179465, at *7 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2018) (“The Court is unpersuaded 

by Plaintiff's argument that a change in Plaintiff's principal counsel of record and a 

resulting switch in the support staff tasked with calendaring deadlines amounts to 

excusable neglect.”); O'Bryan v. Pier 1 Imps., (U.S.), Inc., No. 17cv1027-WQH-MDD, 

2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35751, at *3-4 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 2018) (internal calendaring error 

not good cause to grant request to amend scheduling order and reopen discovery); 

Friedman v. Albertson’s, LLC, No. 14-CV-828 WQH (NLS), 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 

99844, at *7 (S.D. Cal. July 30, 2015) (“[D]efense counsel’s mis-calendaring of the parties’ 

rebuttal designation deadline militates against a finding of good cause.”). 

Even taking this supposed “clerical” error aside, Mr. Stewart’s actions also militate 

against a finding of good cause or excusable neglect. Specifically, Mr. Stewart, as 

Plaintiff’s lead counsel, provides no explanation for why he did not bother to review the 

Court’s Scheduling Order until after Defendant had served its expert disclosures. As 

Defendant notes, Defendant’s November 20, 2019 e-mail informing Plaintiff’s counsel that 

Plaintiff had not met the deadline for exchanging expert designations was sent to a “Work” 

listserv that presumably included Mr. Stewart. See ECF No. 15 at 2, fn. 1. Further, the email was addressed directly to Mr. Stewart. ECF No. 15-2 at 2. This e-mail should have 

prompted Mr. Stewart to review the deadlines set forth in Court’s Scheduling Order. 

Instead, Mr. Stewart appears to have neglected to look at these deadlines until December 

23, 2019—over six months after the Court issued its Scheduling Order. 

Despite his carelessness, Mr. Stewart argues that the “failure to grant this 

continuance would virtually preclude” this matter from being resolved on the merits. ECF 

Case 3:19-cv-00100-CAB-LL Document 16 Filed 01/15/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
 4 

19cv100-L-LL

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

No. 14 at 4. Defendant appears to concede this point, noting that “[a] plaintiff alleging 

medical malpractice must establish a breach of the standard of care through expert medical 

testimony.” ECF No. 15 at 3. 

The Court is mindful that the procedural rules governing civil actions are to be 

construed to achieve the just determination of every action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. “It is 

well settled that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are to be liberally construed to 

effectuate the general purpose of seeing that cases are tried on the merits and to dispense 

with technical procedural problems." Rodgers v. Watt, 722 F.2d 456, 459 (9th Cir. 1983). 

In balance, in order to effectuate the general purpose of seeing that this case is tried 

on the merits, the Court will GRANT IN PART Plaintiff’s request as follows: 

Current Deadline New Deadline 

Expert Disclosures December 20, 2019 January 31, 2020 

Rebuttal Expert 

Disclosures 

January 17, 2020 February 14, 2020 

Completion of Expert 

Discovery 

February 21, 2020 March 2, 2020 

Even so, a scheduling order “is not a frivolous piece of paper idly entered, which 

can be cavalierly disregarded by counsel without peril.” Johnson, 975 F.2d at 610. 

Plaintiff’s request to re-open fact discovery and continue any other deadlines is therefore 

DENIED. While the Court recognizes that Plaintiff may be harmed by his counsel’s 

neglect in timely seeking discovery, as the Ninth Circuit recognizes, “litigants are bound 

by the conduct of their attorneys, absent egregious circumstances[.]” Wei v. Hawaii, 763 

F.2d 370, 372 (9th Cir. 1985) 

The Court also finds it appropriate to sanction Plaintiff’s counsel for its failure to 

properly adhere to the Court’s Scheduling Order. See Rule 16(f)(1)(C). For these reasons, 

on or before January 21, 2020, Defendant’s counsel shall submit a declaration setting forth 

the hours and fees incurred in opposing Plaintiff’s Motion to Continue. Plaintiff may file 

Case 3:19-cv-00100-CAB-LL Document 16 Filed 01/15/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
 5 

19cv100-L-LL

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

objections to Defendant’s declaration on or before January 28, 2020. Defendant’s 

declaration and Plaintiff’s Response shall not exceed three pages in length.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 14, 2020 

Case 3:19-cv-00100-CAB-LL Document 16 Filed 01/15/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5