Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01063/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01063-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Product Liability

---

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 All further references to a “Rule” are to the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure, unless otherwise noted.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

TERRI S. O’NEAL, individually

and as successor-in-interest

to the Estate of BENJAMIN L.

BRATT; BARRY M. BRATT,

individually,

NO. CIV S-06-1063 FCD/DAD

Plaintiffs,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORPORATION

d/b/a GLAXOSMITHKLINE, a

Pennsylvania Corporation; and

DOES 1-50,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

This matter is before the court on defendant SmithKline

Beecham Corporation d/b/a GlaxoSmithKline’s (“GSK”) motion to

amend the pretrial scheduling order and to exceed the tendeposition limit, pursuant to Rules 16, 26 and 30 of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure.1 Defendant seeks to re-open fact

discovery for the limited purpose of allowing GSK to depose 

Case 2:06-cv-01063-FCD-DAD Document 128 Filed 10/22/07 Page 1 of 7
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 Because oral argument will not be of material

assistance, the court orders the matter submitted on the briefs. 

E.D. Cal. L.R. 78-230(h).

2

David Ashby, CEO of the New Morning Counseling Center (“New

Morning”), and Gene Holt, a mental health professional at New

Morning. Defendant also seeks to depose Ashley Phillips, Andrew

Brundage, Andy Southard and Stephanie Polambi, friends of

plaintiffs’ son Benjamin Bratt, and to re-depose plaintiffs,

Barry Bratt and Terry O’Neal. Plaintiffs oppose defendant’s

motion. For the reasons set forth below,2 defendant’s motion is

DENIED.

On April 14, 2006, plaintiffs filed a complaint in the

Superior Court of California, County of El Dorado, alleging

claims for negligence, strict liability, breach of express

warranty, fraud, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. 

Subsequently, in May 2006, the case was removed to this court on

the basis of diversity jurisdiction. On March 2, 2007, the court

issued an Amended Pretrial Scheduling Order, setting the deadline

for factual discovery as June 8, 2007, the deadline for expert

designations as June 29, 2007, and the deadline for expert

discovery as August 6, 2007. On June 9, 2007, the court granted

the parties’ joint motion to extend the expert discovery deadline

to August 24, 2007.

Plaintiffs contend the prescription medication, Paxil,

caused their son to commit suicide. As such, defendant argues 

it is critical it has the opportunity to depose all mental health

professionals who treated plaintiffs’ son before his death. 

(Def. Mot. to Amend, filed September 7, 2007 (“Def. Mot.”), at

Case 2:06-cv-01063-FCD-DAD Document 128 Filed 10/22/07 Page 2 of 7
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 On July 25, 2007 the court granted defendant’s motion

to re-open discovery for the limited purpose of deposing Henley. 

3

2). Through this motion, defendant seeks to re-open fact

discovery in order to depose multiple witnesses in excess of the

ten-deposition limit. Defendant argues that in light of

information revealed during the recent deposition of Robert

Henley,3 a family therapist who treated plaintiffs’ son, the

depositions of Ashby, Holt, and plaintiffs are warranted. 

Defendant contends that prior to Henley’s deposition, GSK had no

reason to depose either Ashby or Holt. At Henley’s deposition on

August 15, 2007, however, Henley testified he received a phone

call two years ago from Ashby regarding psychological tests Holt

allegedly performed on plaintiffs’ son while he was being treated

at New Morning. (Dep. of Robert Henley, Ex. 2 of Def. Mot.

(“Henley Dep.”), at 3). Defendant therefore asserts that

Henley’s deposition testimony put it on notice, for the first

time, that both Ashby and Holt may have information relevant to

their defenses relating to plaintiffs’ son’s mental health status

prior to taking Paxil. 

Defendant further contends depositions of four of Benjamin

Bratt’s friends are also necessary. Defendant explains that

information revealed during the June 4, 2007 deposition of 

Jeremy Dawson, a close friend of Benjamin’s, suggests these other

friends could provide useful information about Benjamin’s alleged

suicide attempt prior to the time he began taking Paxil. 

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

Case 2:06-cv-01063-FCD-DAD Document 128 Filed 10/22/07 Page 3 of 7
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

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. 

The moving party may establish good cause by showing “(1)

that [it] was diligent in assisting the court in creating a

workable Rule 16 order; (2) that noncompliance with a Rule 16

deadline occurred or will occur, notwithstanding [a party’s]

diligent efforts to comply, because of the development of matters

which could not have been reasonably foreseen or anticipated at

the time of the Rule 16 scheduling conference; and (3) that [it]

was diligent in seeking amendment of the Rule 16 order, once it

became apparent that [it] could not comply with the order.” 

Jackson v. Laureate, Inc., 186 F.R.D. 605, 608 (E.D. Cal.

1999)(citations omitted).

Plaintiffs oppose defendant’s requested discovery, arguing

defendant misrepresents Henley’s testimony and that their

proffered evidence establishes that Ashby and Holt do not have

any relevant information about Benjamin Bratt. More

specifically, plaintiffs assert Henley’s testimony, cited by

defendant, is unreliable since Henley indicated several times he

did not remember plaintiffs’ son and that his testimony was based

on “what people told [him] has happened.” (Henley Dep. at 3). 

Case 2:06-cv-01063-FCD-DAD Document 128 Filed 10/22/07 Page 4 of 7
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

5

Plaintiffs also proffer evidence that plaintiffs’ son was never

seen at New Morning. Ashby declares “there are no records for

anyone named Benjamin L. Bratt” at New Morning. (Dec. of David

Ashby, filed September 28, 2007 (“Ashby Dec.”), at 2). Moreover,

Ashby states he “never informed Robert Henley . . . that New

Morning has records showing that Mr. Henley provided any therapy

to Benjamin Bratt, nor to discuss any aspect of this pending

litigation.” (Id.) Similarly, Holt declares he has “no

recollection of ever treating anyone by the name of Benjamin L.

Bratt.” (Dec. of Gene Holt, filed September 28, 2007 (“Holt

Dec.”), at 1). Holt further states he was hired as a therapist

by New Morning in February 1998, nearly a year after plaintiffs’

son committed suicide. (Id.) 

Ashby and Holt’s declarations satisfy the court that little,

if any, information is to be gleaned about Benjamin Bratt’s

medical care from their depositions. While defendant may have

diligently sought this discovery, as it only became aware of

Ashby and Holt’s potential involvement on August 15, 2007, it is

not likely that their depositions will reveal any pertinent

information. Defendant stresses nonetheless a notation in New

Morning’s records that may indicate plaintiff Barry Bratt

contacted New Morning on September 30, 1996. (New Morning

Record, attached to Ashby Dec., filed September 28, 2007, at 4). 

That record shows at most, however, that Barry Bratt may have

called New Morning that day; the record also shows that any 

inquiry was closed that same day. The court is satisfied that

ultimately “no service or treatment [was] rendered” to Benjamin

Bratt at New Morning, as explained by Ashby (Ashby Dec., at 2). 

Case 2:06-cv-01063-FCD-DAD Document 128 Filed 10/22/07 Page 5 of 7
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 Defendant sought to re-depose plaintiffs on the limited

issue of any contact with New Morning. 

6

Given that New Morning has no records regarding Benjamin and that

the declarations of both Ashby and Holt indicate their testimony

would add no relevant information, defendant has failed to make

the necessary showing to re-open discovery. For these reasons,

defendant’s motion to re-open discovery for the purpose of

deposing Ashby, Holt, and plaintiffs4 is DENIED. 

Regarding defendant’s request to depose several of

Benjamin’s friends, defendant contends that it could not take the

deposition of the friends until now because, despite months of

searching, GSK was unable to locate them. Defendant asserts

Phillips, Brundage, Southard, and Polambi were unreachable until

Dawson provided information as to their whereabouts at his June

4, 2007 deposition. Defendant maintains it did not have enough

time to schedule their depositions before discovery closed on

June 8, 2007. 

Defendant has not shown good cause for the delay in moving

to re-open fact discovery with respect to Benjamin Bratt’s

friends. Defendant concedes in its motion it became aware of the

witnesses’ location on June 4, 2007. (Def. Mot. at 9). However,

defendant waited until September 7, 2007 to file the instant

motion. Defendant provides the court with no explanation as to

why it waited nearly eight weeks before petitioning the court. 

Moreover, defendant fails to demonstrate a good faith effort made

to find and depose the witnesses before discovery closed. 

Defendant merely states that because events in this case took

place ten years ago, locating witnesses “proved extraordinarily

Case 2:06-cv-01063-FCD-DAD Document 128 Filed 10/22/07 Page 6 of 7
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

7

difficult.” (Id.) Therefore, because defendant has failed to

show diligence, defendant’s motion to amend the pretrial

scheduling order to re-open factual discovery for the purpose of

taking the depositions of Phillips, Brundage, Southard and

Polambi is DENIED.

Finally, the court notes that in plaintiffs’ opposition,

they agree with defendant’s request to extend the dispositive

motion deadline. Defendant moved for this extension in light of

its request for the subject discovery. However, since

defendant’s motion is denied, the scheduling order remains in

place. The final date for hearing dispositive motions is

November 9, 2007, and defendant has timely noticed and filed its

motion for summary judgment and other related motions. If

plaintiffs seek a continuance of the motions, they must move the

court via an appropriate motion under Rule 16. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 22, 2007

Case 2:06-cv-01063-FCD-DAD Document 128 Filed 10/22/07 Page 7 of 7