Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00310/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00310-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1331pi Fed. Question: Personal Injury

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

FILED 

AUG - 3 2015 

CLER! ~, u.s. D!STRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRIC"!, RF CALIFORNIA 

BY ~ DEPUTY , 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

CHRISTINE PLANTE, and 

C.J.S., a minor, 

vs. 

Plaintiffs, 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Defendant. 

CASE NO. 13cv0310-GPC(KSC) 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S 

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF 

TIME 

[Doc. 77] 

On July 16,2015, plaintiff Christine Plante filed a document entitled "Request 

17 for an Extension of Time." [Doc. 77] From the substance of her filing, it appears that 

18 the plaintiff requests that this Court modify the dates in the Scheduling Order to permit 

19 her additional time to provide an expert witness report and conduct expert-related 

20 discovery. This is the plaintiffs third request for an extension of time in which to 

21 obtain an expert witness. See [Docs. 69, 71] 

22 In support of this third request for an extension of expert-related deadlines, the 

23 plaintiff reports that she has now identified a prospective expert witness, Dr. James 

24 Alton Burks. [Doc. 77, p. 1] The plaintiff asserts that she has spoken to Dr. Burks by 

25 telephone and provided him with "medical records and payment." Id. She states, 

26 however, that since they spoke on the telephone, Dr. Burk has become unresponsive 

27 to her efforts to contact him via telephone and email. Id. The plaintiff concludes that 

28 at this time, "[h]e is an absent witness." Id. 

- 1 - I3cv03 IO-GPC(KSC) 

Case 3:13cv00310GPCKSC Document 78 Filed 08/03/15 Page 1 of 4
1 A. Legal Standards 

2 District Courts have broad discretion to supervise the pre-trial phase oflitigation 

3 and to "manage the discovery process to facilitate prompt and efficient resolution of 

4 the lawsuit." Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 599 (1988). Scheduling Orders 

5 are issued pursuant to Rule 16(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to limit the 

6 time to join parties, amend the pleadings, complete discovery and file motions. FED. 

7 R. CIV. P. 16(b)(1)-(3). Once in place, "[a] schedule may be modified only for good 

8 cause and with the judge's consent." FED. R. CIV. P. 16(b)(4). 

9 The "good cause" requirement of Rule 16 primarily considers the diligence of 

10 the party seeking the amendment. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 

11 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). A party demonstrates good cause for the modification of a 

12 scheduling order by showing that, even with the exercise of due diligence, he or she 

13 was unable to meet the deadlines set forth in the order. See Zivkovic v. So. Cal. Edison 

14 Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087-88 (9th Cir. 2002). 

15 B. Factual Background 

16 Ms. Plante states in a Declaration that on an unspecified date, she spoke to a 

17 referral service called The Expert Institute. [Doc. 77-2, p. 2] For a fee of$2,000, The 

18 Expert Institute referred her to a potential expert witness, Dr. Burks. Id., [Doc. 77-4, 

19 Exs. 1-2, pp. 1-7] Dr. Burks called the plaintiff by telephone at least once on an 

20 unknown date, but did not indicate at that time whether he would be able to provide his 

21 expert opinion in this case. [Doc. 77, p. 1] He also told Ms. Plante that he prefers to 

22 work with attorneys in cases rather than pro se litigants. [Doc. 77-2, p. 4] 

23 Following her initial conversation with Dr. Burks, on May 8, 2015, Ms. Plante 

24 served notice upon opposing counsel designating Dr. Burks as the plaintiffs medical 

25 expert in this case. [Doc. 77-4, Ex. 3, p. 8] 

26 Ms. Plante sent Dr. Burks the relevant medical records from this case and an 

27 additional $2,000 in a retainer free on May 11, 2015, and May 15,2015. Id. at 1-2; 

28 [Doc. 77-4, Exs. 4-5, pp. 9-10] Before that time, on an unspecified date, Ms. Plante also 

- 2 - \3ev03) O-GPC(KSC) 

Case 3:13-cv-00310-GPC-KSC Document 78 Filed 08/03/15 Page 2 of 4
1 informed Dr. Burks via email of the Court's Scheduling Order and the various expert2 related due dates and deadlines. [Doc. 77-2, p. 3] 

3 The plaintiff claims that she last spoke to Dr. Burks on June ]Cd or 4th, 2015, 

4 when she called to remind him that his report would be due soon. [Doc. 77-2, p. 4] She 

5 reports that Dr. Burks said that he was busy and would call her back, but he never did. 

6 Id. To date, Ms. Plante has not heard from Dr. Burks, cannot reach him by email or 

7 telephone, and is uncertain whether the checks that she sent him have been cashed.! 

8 Id.; [Doc. 77, p. 1] She concludes that Dr. Burks has "resigned" from the case. [Doc. 

9 77-2, p. 3] 

10C. Discussion 

11 Courts are directed to afford pro se litigants some leniency to compensate for 

12 their lack of legal training. See Jackson v. Carey, 353 F.3d 750, 757 (9th Cir. 2003) 

13 ("In civil rights cases where the plaintiff appears pro se, the court must construe the 

14 pleadings liberally and must afford plaintiff the benefit of any doubt.") (internal 

15 citation omitted). Notwithstanding the above, this Court previously cautioned the 

16 plaintiff that it will not grant "b lanket extensions ofthe pretrial dates" and that "further 

17 extensions of the pretrial deadlines [would] not be granted absent a showing of 

18 extraordinary good cause." [Doc. 69, p. 2] This Court has further reminded Ms. Plante 

19 that it is "her responsibility to maintain compliance with the Court's deadlines and to 

20 prosecute her case in a timely manner." [Doc. 71, p. 2] 

21 In this case, the Court concludes that Ms. Plante has failed to show the diligence 

22 or good cause necessary to warrant a third extension of the expert-related deadlines. 

23 Discovery commenced in October 20 14, following the Case Management Conference. 

24 [Doc. 30] Nine months is more than sufficient time under the circumstances for a party 

25 to secure the assistance of an expert witness for trial. 

26 

! Contrary to the plaintiff's assertions, this case does not confer upon the Court 

27 any' authority' over Dr. Burks. The Court has no way of investigating wbether he has 

cashed the checks Ms. Plante claims she sent to hlm. Indiviauals with whom the 

28 parties consult in the course of the litigation are not "agent[s] of the court." Cf [Doc. 77-2, p_ 3] 

- 3 - I3cv031O-GPC(KSC) 

Case 3:13-cv-00310-GPC-KSC Document 78 Filed 08/03/15 Page 3 of 4
1 While the unexpected withdrawal of an expert witness can sometimes support 

2 good cause to amend a scheduling order, see Parkv. CAS Enterprises, Inc., 08cv385-

3 DMS (NLS), 2009 WL 4057888, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2009), Ms. Plante has not 

4 established that Dr. Burks ever agreed to be the plaintiffs expert in this case. Instead, 

5 she merely asserts that Dr. Burks "did not say that he would not provide his expert 

6 opinion" when they first spoke. [Doc. 77, p. 1] (emphasis added) Furthermore, even if 

7 Dr. Burks had agreed at one time to be the plaintiffs expert witness, she has not had 

8 contact with him since early June. [Doc. 77-2, p. 3] This Motion was filed on July 16, 

9 2015. Six weeks is more than enough time to find a suitable substitute. 

10 This Court is sympathetic to Ms. Plante's situation. However, nothing in her 

11 Motion or accompanying Declaration persuades the Court that Ms. Plante will succeed 

12 in locating a suitable expert witness for trial if given a third extension of time to do so. 

13 The Court is familiar with Ms. Plante's efforts to date to find both an attorney to 

14 represent her and C.J.C, and an expert. However, she has not presented any new 

15 information in the instant Motion to demonstrate that she will be any more able to find 

16 an expert now than before. More likely, a third extension will simply further delay this 

17 case, which has already been pending since early 2013. 

18 D. Conclusion 

19 In conclusion, this Court finds that Ms. Plante has failed to meet her burden of 

20 showing good cause and diligence to amend the Scheduling Order a third time. 

21 Accordingly, this Court DENIES the plaintiffs request without prejudice. 

22 

23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

24 i/l-4.. Date: 'Ii J ,2015 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Unit 6 States Magistrate Judge 

-4- 13 ev031 O-GPC(KSC) 

Case 3:13-cv-00310-GPC-KSC Document 78 Filed 08/03/15 Page 4 of 4