Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01874/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01874-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GARRY STEELE,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-1874 DAD P

vs.

MARK McMAHON, ORDER

Defendant.

 /

Plaintiff, a former state prisoner, is proceeding pro se with a civil rights action

seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter is before the court on defendant’s December

4, 2007 discovery motion. 

First, defendant’s counsel has moved the court for an order deeming defendant’s

disclosure of retained expert Dr. Sher timely despite the six-day delay in serving Dr. Sher’s

report on plaintiff. Defendant contends that Dr. Sher could not feasibly prepare the expert report

by the date disclosure was due because of his recovery from surgery and the intervening

Thanksgiving holiday. Good cause appearing, the court will deem defendant’s disclosure of

retained expert Dr. Sher timely.

Defendant’s counsel has also moved the court to reopen discovery to allow for the

deposition of Dr. Ramberg, contending that Dr. Ramberg was not previously deposed because he

Case 2:05-cv-01874-DAD Document 60 Filed 12/10/07 Page 1 of 2
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

2

was not designated by defendant’s counsel as an expert until after the close of discovery under

the court’s scheduling order. In the absence of good cause, the court will not modify the

scheduling order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f); Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d

604, 607-08 (9th Cir. 1992). Counsel’s unexplained failure to timely disclose an expert witness

obviously does not establish good cause to reopen discovery. Under the court’s scheduling order

discovery closed in this matter on January 1, 2007. Moreover, plaintiff has already filed a

pretrial statement, defendant’s pretrial statement is due December 21, 2007 and the final pretrial

conference is set for December 28, 2007 with a jury trial is set for February 25, 2008. Defendant

has failed to demonstrate good cause to reopen discovery and reschedule the previously

established dates in this matter. Accordingly, the court will deny defendant’s request to reopen

discovery without prejudice to renewal based upon a showing of good cause. 

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendant’s disclosure of retained expert Dr. Sher is deemed timely; and

2. Defendant’s request to reopen discovery is denied without prejudice.

DATED: December 10, 2007.

DAD:9

stee1874.disc 

Case 2:05-cv-01874-DAD Document 60 Filed 12/10/07 Page 2 of 2