Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00176/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00176-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 362
Nature of Suit: Medical Malpractice
Cause of Action: 28:1441pi Removal- Personal Injury

---

1

3:17-cv-00176-JAH-NLS

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

DEVYN WINCHELL, DAVID 

WINCHELL,

Plaintiffs,

v.

THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY 

OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:17-cv-00176-JAH-NLS

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART JOINT 

MOTION TO AMEND THE 

SCHEDULING ORDER 

[ECF No. 16] 

Before the Court is the parties’ Joint Motion to Modify or Amend the Scheduling 

Order Regulating Discovery and Other Pretrial Proceedings. ECF No. 16. The parties seek 

a 90 day extension of all dates to permit additional discovery to proceed and be completed 

prior to the discovery cut off, and to allow ample time for the experts to review the 

depositions prior to expert discovery and disclosure. Id. at 2. 

Trial courts “set schedules and establish deadlines to foster the efficient treatment 

and resolution of cases. Those efforts will be successful only if the deadlines are taken 

seriously by the parties.” Wong v. Regents of the Univ. of Calif., 410 F.3d 1052, 1060, 

1062 (9th Cir. 2005). “Courts set such schedules to permit the court and the parties to 

deal with cases in a thorough and orderly manner, and they must be allowed to enforce 

Case 3:17-cv-00176-JAH-NLS Document 17 Filed 12/01/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

3:17-cv-00176-JAH-NLS

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

them, unless there are good reasons not to.” Id. A request to modify the scheduling order 

is governed by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) and “may be modified only for 

good cause and with the judge’s consent.” The good cause standard articulated in Rule 

16 focuses on the diligence of the party seeking to amend the scheduling order, and the 

reasons for seeking modification. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc. 975 F.2d 604, 

609 (9th Cir. 1992) (“[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.”)

(citing Gestetner Corp. v. Case Equip. Co., 108 F.R.D. 138, 141 (D.Me.1985)). The 

district court may amend the scheduling order if it “cannot be met despite the diligence of 

the party seeking the extension.” Id. (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 Advisory Committee 

Notes). 

With these standards in mind, the Court turns to the parties’ joint motion. The 

parties’ submissions demonstrate that Plaintiffs’ depositions were only completed 

November 21, but offer that the delay was due to medical conditions and “scheduling 

conflicts amongst all parties.” ECF No. 16 at 2, ¶ 2. The joint motion also makes clear 

that Plaintiffs’ deposition requests were not sent until November 3, 2017, and offer no 

explanation for the delay. Id. at ¶ 3. The parties also represent that counsel for defendant 

the Regents of the University of California are engaged in trial expected to conclude 

December 18. Id. at 8. The parties submit that a 90 day continuance is required to permit 

time to complete depositions and permit the experts time to review all the necessary 

deposition transcripts. 

Here, the parties were provided approximately eight months for fact discovery in the 

initial scheduling order, with an additional three months for expert discovery. See ECF 

No. 12. The medical condition of the plaintiff and the trial currently in-progress are the 

only good cause presented in the parties’ submission, but the plaintiff's deposition is now 

complete, and the trial is expected to conclude December 18, 2017. The remaining 

diligence of the parties is unclear. While they represent written discovery has been

///

Case 3:17-cv-00176-JAH-NLS Document 17 Filed 12/01/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

3:17-cv-00176-JAH-NLS

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

ongoing, the parties only recently sought a protective order (see ECF Nos. 14-15) and 

plaintiffs only recently noticed depositions (ECF No. 16 at 2, ¶ 3). 

The Court does not find good cause to provide a 90 day extension of all dates, or to 

continue the pretrial motion filing deadline or any dates thereafter, and DENIES this 

request of the joint motion. However, the Court finds it appropriate based on the parties’ 

submission to modify the fact and expert discovery deadlines and GRANTS IN PART the 

joint motion to amend the Scheduling Order as follows:

1. The close of fact discovery (see ECF No. 12, ¶ 2) is continued from December 

15, 2017 to February 2, 2018. 

2. The deadline for expert designation and disclosures (see ECF No. 12, ¶¶ 3, 4) is 

continued from January 26, 2018 to February 23, 2018. 

3. The deadline for the exchange of rebuttal experts and supplemental disclosure

(see ECF No. 12, ¶¶ 3, 5) is continued from February 26, 2018 to March 16, 

2018. 

4. The close of expert discovery (see ECF No. 12, ¶ 6) is continued from March 26, 

2018 to April 6, 2018.

All other dates, deadlines, requirements and instructions set forth in the initial scheduling 

order (ECF No. 12) remain unchanged. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 1, 2017

Case 3:17-cv-00176-JAH-NLS Document 17 Filed 12/01/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3