Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-01444/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-01444-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 310
Nature of Suit: Airplane Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

---

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----

LINDA S. BEATTIE and BRUCE C.

BEATTIE,

NO. CIV. S-03-1444 FCD PAN

Plaintiffs,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO, and

DOES 1-100,

Defendants.

_________________________/

----oo0oo----

Plaintiffs Linda S. Beattie and Bruce C. Beattie move for

leave to modify the pretrial scheduling order to (1) allow

plaintiff Linda S. Beattie to augment her Rule 26 Disclosure to

include two percipient witnesses; and (2) to allow plaintiffs to

bring a discovery motion before the court. Defendant Southwest

Airlines Co. opposes the motion. For the reasons set forth

///

///

Case 2:03-cv-01444-FCD-EFB Document 41 Filed 09/28/05 Page 1 of 8
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. 

E.D. Cal. Local Rule 78-230(h).

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

Rules of Civil Procedure.

2

below,1 plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED. 

BACKGROUND

On April 2, 2002, plaintiff boarded defendant’s airline to

travel from Sacramento, California to San Diego, California. 

(Pls.’ Compl., filed March 28, 2003, at 4). Just before takeoff,

luggage fell from the overhead compartment, striking plaintiff. 

(Id.) As a result of the injuries plaintiff sustained in the

accident, she underwent spinal surgery and alleges that she will

suffer some permanent disability. (Id.) 

On March 28, 2003, plaintiff brought suit against defendant

in the Superior Court for the State of California, alleging that

defendant employees loaded the luggage in a negligent manner. 

(Id.) On July 7, 2003, defendant generally denied plaintiff’s

complaint and requested removal to this court. (Def.’s Ans.,

filed July 7, 2003, at 1; Not. Rem., filed July 7, 2003, at 1). 

The pretrial scheduling order initially set the discovery

deadline for October 24, 2004, but the court later extended the

discovery deadline to January 24, 2005. (Or. 2d disc. ext.,

filed January 19, 2005).

1. Percipient Witnesses

Plaintiffs served their initial witness disclosure statement

pursuant to Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure2 on

February 6, 2004. (Pls.’ Mtn., filed August 26, 2005, at 8). 

During this period, plaintiff Linda S. Beattie was taking a

Case 2:03-cv-01444-FCD-EFB Document 41 Filed 09/28/05 Page 2 of 8
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

myriad of prescriptions for pain, some of which significantly

affected her memory. (Beattie Decl., filed August 26, 2005, ¶

4). Plaintiff declares that she did not recall either Denise

Miller or Linda Patton-Finch, the undisclosed percipient

witnesses, as having been on the flight or as witnessing the

accident. (Id. ¶ 5). However, sometime in May or June of 2005,

after plaintiff stopped taking some of her medications, Ms.

Miller and Ms. Patton-Finch contacted plaintiff. (Id. ¶ 6). The

witnesses told Ms. Beattie that they had been called directly by

defendant’s attorneys and went into detail about what they had

observed. (Id.) Plaintiff formally disclosed the existence of

the two percipient witnesses to the defendant on June 22, 2005 in

her Supplemental Rule 26 Disclosure. (Pls.’ Mtn., at 2).

Defendant deposed the two percipient witnesses on July 20, 2005. 

(Dolter Decl., filed September 9, 2005, at Exs. A, B).

2. Discovery Dispute 

On August 18, 2004, plaintiffs served their request for

production of documents on defendant, requesting 

[a]ny and all written material, training manuals, and

other written materials provided to flight attendants,

including but not limited to, the proper manners in

which luggage is to be stored, placed into and removed

from the overhead luggage compartments. 

(Heller Decl., filed August 29, 2005, at Ex. A). The documents

produced in response to this request for production included

parts of the flight attendant manual, specifically sections one

through three and the table of contents. (Id. ¶ 17). Each of

the sections was numbered individually, and the table of contents

referenced only sections one through three. However, after the

discovery deadline had passed, plaintiffs became aware that the

Case 2:03-cv-01444-FCD-EFB Document 41 Filed 09/28/05 Page 3 of 8
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

manual produced by defendant was missing relevant portions. 

(Id.) Specifically, on April 25, 2005, defendant indicated that

it would produce section 5 of the manual pertaining to the

testimony of its expert, Paula Gaudet. (Id.)

STANDARD

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)). 

When evaluating whether a party was diligent, the Ninth

Circuit has determined that 

[a]lthough 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 modification. If that party was not

diligent, the inquiry should end.

 

Id. at 610; see also Gestetner, 108 F.R.D. at 141. 

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

that the party was diligent in assisting the court in creating a

workable Rule 16 order; (2) that the party’s noncompliance with a

Rule 16 deadline occurred, notwithstanding 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 the party was

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

became apparent that compliance with the pretrial scheduling

order was not possible. Jackson v. Laureate, Inc., 186 F.R.D.

Case 2:03-cv-01444-FCD-EFB Document 41 Filed 09/28/05 Page 4 of 8
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 Defendant does not dispute plaintiff’s diligence in

assisting the court in creating a workable Rule 16 order. (See

Def.’s Opp., at 2). 

5

605, 608 (E.D. Cal. 1999)(citations omitted).

ANALYSIS

A. Percipient Witnesses

Plaintiff Linda Beattie brings this motion to extend the

pretrial scheduling order to allow her to augment her Rule 26

disclosure to include two percipient witnesses, Denise Miller and

Linda Patton-Finch. (Pls.’ Mtn., at 2). Defendants argue that

plaintiff has not satisfied the good cause standard for extending

the pretrial scheduling order. Specifically, defendants allege

that plaintiff knew or should have known that Ms. Miller and Ms.

Patton-Finch were percipient witnesses prior to May or June of

2005 and therefore, should have moved to modify the order at an

earlier date. (Def.’s Opp., at 2). 

Plaintiff has shown good cause to augment her Rule 26

disclosure to include Denise Miller and Linda Patton-Finch. With

respect to the second diligence inquiry,3 plaintiff was taking

prescription medications for pain and anti-inflammatories, some

of which had severe side effects on her memory. (Beattie Decl.,

¶ 4). While on these medications, plaintiff did not recall

whether either Ms. Miller or Ms. Patton-Finch witnessed the

incident or was even a passenger on the same flight. (Id. ¶ 5). 

Nor did plaintiff recall any conversations with the witnesses

about the accident. (Id.) Plaintiff’s memory problems, suffered

as a result of her taking prescription medications, could not

have been “reasonably foreseen or anticipated” at the pretrial

Case 2:03-cv-01444-FCD-EFB Document 41 Filed 09/28/05 Page 5 of 8
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 will not suffer prejudice due to the addition

of these witnesses to plaintiff’s Rule 26 disclosure, as

defendant deposed both witnesses on July 20, 2005. (Dolter

Decl., at Exs. A, B). 

6

scheduling conference. See Jackson v. Laureate, Inc., 186 F.R.D.

at 608. Therefore, plaintiff was diligent in her efforts to

comply with the original pretrial scheduling order. 

With respect to the third diligence inquiry, the earliest

that plaintiff became aware that Denise Miller and Linda PattonFinch were witnesses was sometime in May or June of 2005 when

they contacted her. (Beattie Decl., filed August 26, 2005, ¶ 6;

Burns Decl., filed September 16, 2005, ¶ 3). She then

immediately notified her attorney about the existence of these

witnesses. (Beattie Decl. ¶ 6). Plaintiff interviewed the

witnesses in late June of 2005 and gave formal notice to the

defendants by adding Ms. Miller and Ms. Patton-Finch to the

amended witness list filed on June 22, 2005.4 (Burns Decl., ¶ 3;

Pls.’ Mtn., at 2). This motion was filed on August 26, 2005. 

Thus, once it became apparent that she could not comply with the

pretrial scheduling order, plaintiff was diligent in bringing

this motion for modification. Plaintiff’s motion to modify the

pretrial scheduling order to add two percipient witnesses is

GRANTED.

B. Discovery Dispute

Plaintiffs Linda S. Beattie and Bruce C. Beattie also

request modification of the scheduling order to allow plaintiffs

to bring a discovery motion before the court. (Pls.’ Mtn., filed

August 26, 2005, at 2). The discovery dispute centers upon

plaintiff’s motion to compel defendant Southwest to produce its

Case 2:03-cv-01444-FCD-EFB Document 41 Filed 09/28/05 Page 6 of 8
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

flight attendant manual in its entirety. Defendant argues that

plaintiffs have not shown good cause to modify the pretrial

scheduling order. (Def.’s Opp., filed September 9, 2005, at 2). 

Specifically, defendant alleges that plaintiffs knew that

sections of the flight attendant manual were not turned over in

response to the first set of document requests; therefore,

plaintiffs were not diligent in bringing this motion in a timely

manner. 

The court disagrees. Plaintiffs have shown good cause for

modifying the pretrial scheduling order. Plaintiffs’ delay was

primarily caused because they relied on defendant’s erroneous

representation that there were no additional sections of

defendant’s flight attendant manual relevant to the handling of

baggage. (Pls.’ Reply, filed September 16, 2005, at 7). The

document produced by defendant in response to plaintiffs’ first

set of document requests indicated that sections one through

three were the only main sections of the flight attendant manual.

(Heller Decl., ¶ 17). Plaintiffs could not have “reasonably

foreseen or anticipated” that the flight attendant manual

produced by defendant was missing relevant sections. See Jackson

v. Laureate, Inc., 186 F.R.D. at 608. 

Plaintiffs became aware that other relevant sections of the

flight attendant manual had not been produced by the defendant on

April 25, 2005, when defendant produced Section 5 of the manual

as part of its expert’s supplemental disclosure. (Heller Decl.,

at Ex. C). After learning of the existence of undisclosed

relevant sections of the flight attendant manual, plaintiffs were

diligent in bringing this motion for modification. Plaintiffs’

Case 2:03-cv-01444-FCD-EFB Document 41 Filed 09/28/05 Page 7 of 8
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

8

motion to modify the pretrial scheduling order to allow

plaintiffs to bring a discovery motion before the court is

GRANTED.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs’ motion to modify the

pretrial scheduling order is GRANTED. Plaintiff Linda S. Beattie

may augment her Rule 26 disclosure to include Denise Miller and

Linda Patton-Finch as percipient witnesses. The court orders

discovery to be extended until November 14, 2005, for the limited

purpose of filing a motion to compel production of defendant’s

flight attendant manual in its entirety.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 27, 2005

/s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. 

FRANK C. DAMRELL, Jr.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:03-cv-01444-FCD-EFB Document 41 Filed 09/28/05 Page 8 of 8