Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00078/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00078-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332in Diversity-Insurance Contract

---

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

REJEANNE BERNIER, an

individual,

Plaintiff,

v.

TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY

INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., a

Connecticut corporation,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 11cv0078 JLS(RBB)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S EX

PARTE APPLICATION TO (1)

EXTEND DISCOVERY CUTOFF, (2)

SHORTEN TIME FOR A MOTION FOR

CONTEMPT OF COURT, (3) SHORTEN

TIME TO COMPEL DOCUMENT

PRODUCTION, AND (4) SHORTEN

TIME FOR LEAVE OF COURT TO

AMEND PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT

[ECF NO. 37]

INTRODUCTION

On January 31, 2012, Plaintiff, Rejeanne Bernier, filed an Ex

Parte Application to extend the discovery cutoff and shorten time

to file certain motions. (Notice Ex Parte Appl., Jan. 31, 2012,

ECF No. 37).1 In her Application, she seeks to (1) extend the

discovery cutoff date, (2) shorten time for a motion to hold a

third-party witness in contempt and compel deposition testimony

from him, (3) shorten time for a motion to compel discovery from

1

 Because Bernier’s Notice and Memorandum of Points and

Authorities are not consecutively paginated, the Court will cite to

them using the page numbers assigned by the electronic case filing

system.

1 11cv0078 JLS(RBB)

Case 3:11-cv-00078-JLS-RBB Document 53 Filed 03/19/12 Page 1 of 12
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

the Defendant, and (4) shorten time for a motion to amend her

Complaint. (Id.) Defendant Travelers Property Casualty Insurance

Company filed its Opposition to Bernier’s Ex Parte Application on

February 3, 2012. (Def. Travelers Opp’n Ex Parte Appl. 1, Feb. 3,

2012, ECF No. 38.) Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff filed her Reply. 

(Pl. Rejeanne Bernier’s Reply 1, Feb. 6, 2012, ECF No. 39.)

After reviewing the Ex Parte Application, Opposition, and

Reply, the Court concludes that the Plaintiff is not entitled to

the relief she requests.

I.

THE BASIS FOR AN EX PARTE MOTION

Rejeanne Bernier is a pro se Plaintiff. Courts liberally

construe the pleadings of pro se litigants and give them the

benefit of any doubt. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th

Cir. 2010) (quoting Bretz v. Kelman, 773 F.2d 1026, 1027 n.1 (9th

Cir. 1985)). This Court has applied this principle to Bernier’s

pleadings and other filings. Nonetheless, “pro se litigants are

bound by the rules of procedure.” Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 54

(9th Cir. 1995).

Plaintiff has developed a pattern of filing ex parte motions. 

She has not demonstrated that this request is a proper subject for

ex parte consideration. “Ex parte applications are a form of

emergency relief that will only be granted upon an adequate showing

of good cause or irreparable injury to the party seeking relief.” 

K. Clark v. Time Warner Cable, No. CV 07-1797-VBF(RCx), 2007 U.S.

Dist. LEXIS 100716, at *2 (C.D. Cal. May 3, 2007) (citing Mission

Power Eng’g Co. v. Continental Cas. Co., 883 F. Supp. 488, 492

(C.D. Cal. 1995)). The moving party must be “without fault” in

2 11cv0078 JLS(RBB)

Case 3:11-cv-00078-JLS-RBB Document 53 Filed 03/19/12 Page 2 of 12
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

creating the need for ex parte relief or establish that the “crisis

[necessitating the ex parte application] occurred as a result of

excusable neglect.” Id.

An ex parte application seeks to bypass the regular noticed

motion procedure; consequently, the party requesting ex parte

relief must establish a basis for giving the application

preference. See Mission Power Eng’g Co. v. Continental Cas. Co.,

883 F. Supp. at 492. Bernier’s pending Ex Parte Application [ECF

No. 37] fails this test. See, e.g., Family Home & Fin. Ctr., Inc.

v. Federal Home Loan Mortg. Corp., 461 F. Supp. 2d 1188, 1192 n.5

(C.D. Cal. 2006). “If the Court’s pretrial schedule precluded

Plaintiffs from obtaining additional necessary discovery, their

remedy was to file a motion for relief from the Scheduling Order. 

They did not do so and now cannot be heard to complain about the

unfairness of the Court-imposed deadlines.” Id. (commenting on the

failure to diligently pursue discovery before summary judgment).

Plaintiff has failed to show that her multiple requests should

be considered on an ex parte basis. For that reason alone, the Ex

Parte Application should be denied. Nevertheless, the Court will

also address the merits of Bernier’s Application.

II.

EXTENDING THE DISCOVERY CUTOFF DATE

Plaintiff identifies the current discovery cutoff date as

January 31, 2012. (Mem. P. & A. Supp. Ex Parte Appl. 3-4, Jan. 31,

2012, ECF No. 37.) The Court, however, on January 30, 2012,

extended that deadline to February 13, 2012. (Min. Order 1, Jan.

30, 2012, ECF No. 36.) Bernier seeks to modify that deadline in

order to file a motion to compel deposition testimony from a third3 11cv0078 JLS(RBB)

Case 3:11-cv-00078-JLS-RBB Document 53 Filed 03/19/12 Page 3 of 12
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

party witness and, if her motion is granted, take the deposition. 

(Mem. P. & A. Supp. Ex Parte Appl. 4, Jan. 31, 2012, ECF No. 37.) 

She also intends to bring a motion to compel the production of

audio recordings and “communications.” (Id.) In her Reply,

Bernier adds that she would like to extend the discovery cutoff to

depose “those expert witnesses that neither TRAVELERS nor BERNIER

were able to depose in time . . . .” (Pl. Rejeanne Bernier’s Reply

9, ECF No. 39.) 

This Court issued a Case Management Conference Order on March

4, 2011. The Order provided that all discovery was to be completed

by October 31, 2011. (Case Mgmt. Conference Order 1, ECF No. 10.) 

That deadline has been extended twice. The discovery cutoff was

extended until January 31, 2012, and the deadline for serving

requests for production of documents and interrogatories was

extended until November 29, 2011 [ECF No. 18]. On January 30,

2012, the Court granted the Defendant’s Motion to Compel Answers to

Deposition Questions from Bernier and extended the discovery cutoff

for both parties to February 13, 2012. (Min. Order 1, Jan. 30,

2012, ECF No. 36.)

A. Moving to Compel the Production of Documents

On the last day for serving written discovery, November 29,

2011, the Plaintiff served her second request for production of

documents. (Def. Travelers Opp’n Ex Parte Appl. 4, Feb. 3, 2012,

ECF No. 38.) She sought “‘[a]ny and all audio recordings defendant

Travelers Property Casualty Insurance Company, Inc. took of

Rejeanne Bernier at any time for any claim,’ and repeated this same

request to TRAVELERS as it applies to any recording of Mr. Hans

Croteau.” (Pl. Rejeanne Bernier’s Reply 3, Feb. 6, 2012, ECF No.

4 11cv0078 JLS(RBB)

Case 3:11-cv-00078-JLS-RBB Document 53 Filed 03/19/12 Page 4 of 12
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.) The Defendant responded that it “‘has been unable to locate

any responsive documents [or] recordings.’” (Id.)

B. Moving for Contempt and to Compel Deposition Testimony

On January 10, 2012, approximately one month before the

discovery cutoff, and ten months after the original Case Management

Conference Order, Plaintiff served a deposition subpoena on her

neighbor, Eric Boice, as a third-party witness. (See Def.

Travelers Opp’n Ex Parte Appl. 4, Feb. 3, 2012, ECF No. 38.) 

Boice’s deposition was set for January 26th. (Mem. P. & A. Supp.

Ex Parte Appl. 11, Jan. 31, 2012, ECF No. 37.) “When asked to

raise his right hand to be sworn in, Mr. Boice replied that he

refused to do so, and did not want to get involved.” (Id.) Boice

continued and said that he “would not testify;” he explained that

“Bernier and her son, Hans[,] have sued multiple members of his

family and his acquaintances.” (Def. Travelers Opp’n Ex Parte

Appl. 4, Feb. 3, 2012, ECF No. 38.) In its Opposition, Travelers

emphasizes that it “had nothing to do with [Boice’s] apparent

contempt for his neighbor or Bernier’s failure to timely serve a

subpoena on this witness well in advance of the discovery cutoff.” 

(Id. (citation omitted).) The Defendant argues, “Bernier

noticeably offers no explanation for delaying this deposition until

it became too late to enforce a subpoena.” (Id. (citation

omitted).) 

Travelers observes that Plaintiff waited until January 6,

2012, to serve her first deposition notice. (Id. at 6.) The

following week she attempted to notice five percipient witness

depositions. (Id.) According to Travelers, “[Plaintiff] had known

about these witnesses since before this action was even filed. 

5 11cv0078 JLS(RBB)

Case 3:11-cv-00078-JLS-RBB Document 53 Filed 03/19/12 Page 5 of 12
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

Bernier has offered absolutely no legitimate reason for her failure

to complete discovery in a timely manner.” (Id.)

C. Expert Depositions

In her Reply, Bernier also asks to extend the discovery cutoff

to depose “those expert witnesses that neither TRAVELERS NOR

BERNIER were able to depose in time . . . .” (Pl. Rejeanne

Bernier’s Reply 9, Feb. 6, 2012, ECF No. 39.) She has not

identified the expert witnesses she intends to depose, explained

why she could not take their depositions by the discovery deadline,

or stated how much of an extension she is requesting. Although

Plaintiff gives the impression that Travelers joins in her request

for an extension for expert depositions, notably, it opposes her

Application. (Def. Travelers Opp’n Ex Parte Appl. 1, Feb. 3, 2012,

ECF No. 38.)

III.

LEAVE TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT

Initially, the deadline for filing a motion to amend the

Complaint was July 25, 2011. (Case Mgmt. Conference Order 2, ECF

No. 10.) The Court extended the deadline to October 25, 2011. 

(Order Issuing Second Am. Case Mgmt. Conference Order 3, ECF No.

18.) 

More than three months after the deadline for filing a motion

to amend her Complaint, Bernier seeks to extend that deadline. She

maintains that on January 26, 2012, she uncovered evidence of a

conversation between Hans Croteau, her son, and Travelers. (Pl.

Rejeanne Bernier’s Reply 6, Feb. 6, 2012, ECF No. 39.) Bernier

also asserts that another document, identified as “TR000508” and

produced by Travelers on August 19, 2011, is evidence of

6 11cv0078 JLS(RBB)

Case 3:11-cv-00078-JLS-RBB Document 53 Filed 03/19/12 Page 6 of 12
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

communications between Travelers and others concerning Plaintiff’s

2007 rain damage claim (UMZ7908). (Id. at 3, 6.) Nevertheless,

she argues that Travelers did not identify this document -- an

October 3, 2007 letter from Bernier to Travelers -- as relating to

her insurance claim for rain damage until January 4, 2012. (Id.) 

Plaintiff maintains that her 2007 letter to Travelers is a basis

for amending her Complaint in 2012 and alleging a cause of action

against Travelers for failing to defend Bernier from “‘any suit for

the enforcement of payment under Forgery coverage.’” (Id. at 6.)

The Defendant points out, “[Plaintiff] has known about this

alleged forgery and the cross-complaint since 2008, but she never

tendered the claim to Travelers.” (Def. Travelers Opp’n Ex Parte

Appl. 7, Feb. 3, 2012, ECF No. 38.) The Defendant asserts that

Bernier “has no explanation for why she is claiming a right to a

defense duty in 2012 for a case that started in 2008 and was tried

in 2009.” (Id. at 8.) 

The Plaintiff responds that document number TR000508 is

“crucial evidence of notations defendant made on CROTEAU’s

allegations that there existed a written contract, versus BERNIER’s

clear contradictory claim that only an oral agreement had existed

for what she had intended to be limited remodeling to her home.” 

(Pl. Rejeanne Bernier’s Reply 6, Feb. 6, 2012, ECF No. 39.) 

The essence of Bernier’s argument is that she discovered 

evidence to support a claim that Travelers had a duty to defend the

superior court lawsuit her other son, Jessee Croteau, brought

against her. Plaintiff argues that before January 4, 2012, when

notes of a 2007 conversation between her son, Jessee, and a

representative from Travelers were referenced by the Defendant,

7 11cv0078 JLS(RBB)

Case 3:11-cv-00078-JLS-RBB Document 53 Filed 03/19/12 Page 7 of 12
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

Bernier did not know that she could assert that any written

agreement presented by Jessee was a forgery.

IV. 

AMENDING THE CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER

The deadlines for completing discovery, bringing discovery

motions, and filing motions to amend Bernier’s Complaint have

passed. Plaintiff is asking the Court to extend dates set in the

Case Management Conference Order, extended in a Second Amended Case

Management Conference Order, and extended again after a January 30,

2012 discovery hearing.

This case was filed in San Diego Superior Court on October 29,

2010, and removed to federal court on January 14, 2011. (Notice

Removal 1, ECF No. 1.) The pretrial conference is upcoming; it is

set for June 28, 2012. (Order Issuing Second Am. Case Mgmt.

Conference Order 6, ECF No. 18.)

Rule 16(b)(4) provides that “[a] schedule may be modified only

for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16

(b)(4). The rule’s “‘good cause’ standard primarily considers the

diligence of the party seeking the amendment. 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, 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992)

(quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 advisory committee’s notes (1983

amendment)). “[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.” Id. (internal citation

omitted); accord Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 1295

(9th Cir. 2000).

8 11cv0078 JLS(RBB)

Case 3:11-cv-00078-JLS-RBB Document 53 Filed 03/19/12 Page 8 of 12
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

Consistently, Bernier has prosecuted this lawsuit at her own

pace. Deadlines have not been taken seriously. For example, the

Court initially set August 29, 2011, as the date by which the

Plaintiff was to designate experts. (See Case Mgmt. Conference

Order 2, ECF No. 10.) On August 30, 2011, the day after

Plaintiff’s designation was due, she filed an ex parte application

to extend her deadline to designate expert witnesses [ECF No. 13]. 

The Court granted her request and extended the deadline until

September 9, 2011 [ECF No. 15]. But on September 12th, Bernier

filed an ex parte application to extend all dates by ninety days,

including the date to designate experts [ECF No. 16]. The Court,

in large part, granted Plaintiff’s request and issued a Second

Amended Case Management Conference Order on September 19, 2011 [ECF

No. 18].

On September 22, 2012, Bernier submitted another ex parte

application to extend time [ECF No. 20]. This application was to

extend time to file a motion to compel the production of documents. 

The Defendant had responded to Plaintiff’s request for documents on

August 19, 2011, and the applicable Case Management Conference

Order required that any motion to compel be brought within thirty

days of the response. (See Ex Parte Appl. 2, Sept. 22, 2012, ECF

No. 20; Case Mgmt. Conference Order 1-2, ECF No. 10.) Plaintiff

did not attempt to meet with opposing counsel and confer about her

discovery dispute until September 20, 2012; on that date, she

presented defense counsel with two “meet and confer letters,

totaling 30 single-spaced pages.” (Def. Travelers Opp’n Ex Parte

Appl. 2, Sept. 28, 2011, ECF No. 21.) Travelers argued that

Bernier had not shown good cause to grant the extension. (Id. at

9 11cv0078 JLS(RBB)

Case 3:11-cv-00078-JLS-RBB Document 53 Filed 03/19/12 Page 9 of 12
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.) The Court agreed and denied Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application

[ECF No. 22].

Although case management deadlines were set on March 4, 2011,

Bernier did not notice any deposition until January 6, 2012, less

than four weeks before the then-existing discovery cutoff of

January 31, 2012. The Court subsequently extended this date to

February 13, 2012. Nonetheless, Plaintiff finds herself unable to

compel her neighbor to give deposition testimony or depose the

Defendants’ experts because the discovery cutoff has passed. Her

neighbor’s deposition was scheduled for January 26, 2012. Bernier

does not explain why she did not act earlier.

Similarly, there is nothing in her Application or Reply that

demonstrates any effort to depose Defendant’s expert witnesses

before the February 13, 2012 discovery cutoff. Furthermore, the

request for an extension of the discovery cutoff was first raised

in Bernier’s Reply, and courts generally decline to consider new

arguments and claims raised for the first time in a reply

memorandum. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60

(9th Cir. 1996); Sterner v. United States DEA, No. 05cv0196

JAH(POR), 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98103, at *47 (S.D. Cal. June 1,

2007).

Plaintiff served her second request for production on the last

available date. Travelers responded to her request for audio

recordings stating that it “has been unable to locate any

responsive recordings.” (Def. Travelers Opp’n Ex Parte Appl. 3,

Feb. 3, 2012, ECF No. 38.) The Defendant states that it will

provide the recordings if they are located. (Id.) Plaintiff

simply does not believe Travelers. Her disbelief is not good cause

10 11cv0078 JLS(RBB)

Case 3:11-cv-00078-JLS-RBB Document 53 Filed 03/19/12 Page 10 of 12
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

to modify the pretrial schedule so that Bernier can file a motion

to compel the Defendant to produce audio recordings it cannot

locate.

Finally, Bernier’s assertion that she has discovered a basis

to amend her Complaint to assert a new claim against Travelers is

not persuasive. Here, too, she has not established that she acted

diligently. The lawsuit she brought against her son Jessee, and

his counterclaim against her, were tried in 2009 before San Diego

Superior Court Judge William R. Nevitt. (See Mem. P. & A. Supp. Ex

Parte Appl. 21, Jan. 31, 2012, ECF No. 37.) The extended deadline

for filing a motion to amend the pleadings was October 25, 2011. 

(Order Issuing Second Case Mgmt. Conference Order 3, ECF No. 18.) 

Plaintiff’s current arguments to add an allegedly newly discovered

claim come too late and are not credible.

CONCLUSION

The history of this litigation and Bernier’s actions

underlying the relief she seeks demonstrate that Plaintiff has not

been diligent. Her Ex Parte Application to extend the discovery

deadline and shorten time so that she may (1) bring a motion for

contempt and to compel testimony from her neighbor, a third-party

witness, (2) seek to compel the production of audio recordings and

“communications,” (3) depose expert witnesses, and (4) extend the 

11 11cv0078 JLS(RBB)

Case 3:11-cv-00078-JLS-RBB Document 53 Filed 03/19/12 Page 11 of 12
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

date by which she can file a motion to amend her Complaint to

assert a claim for failing to defend the superior court lawsuit

brought against her in 2008 and tried in 2009 is DENIED.

DATED: March 19, 2012 ____________________________

Ruben B. Brooks, Magistrate Judge

United States District Court

cc:

Judge Sammartino

All Parties of Record

K:\COMMON\BROOKS\CASES\BERNIER0078\OrderDenying1-31-ExParte.wpd 12 11cv0078 JLS(RBB)

Case 3:11-cv-00078-JLS-RBB Document 53 Filed 03/19/12 Page 12 of 12