Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02796/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02796-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983bv Bivens Non-Prisoner

---

1 

15cv2796-JM(BLM) 

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 

JEFFORY FRY, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

SAN DIEGO COUNTY, et al. 

Defendants.

Case No.: 15cv2796-JM(BLM) 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART JOINT 

MOTION TO EXTEND DATES 

REGULATING DISCOVERY AND OTHER 

PRETRIAL PROCEEDINGS 

[ECF No. 52] 

 

On September 5, 2017, the parties filed a “JOINT MOTION TO EXTEND DATES 

REGULATING DISCOVERY AND OTHER PRETRIAL PROCEEDINGS.” ECF No. 44. The parties 

sought to extend the remaining pretrial deadlines by four months. Id. at 1. In support, the 

parties stated that Plaintiff was recovering from back surgery and was unable to be deposed or 

undergo an independent medical examination at the time. Id. at 2. Additionally, the parties 

noted that there was a pending motion to dismiss in the matter [see ECF No. 43] set to be heard 

on October 2, 2017. ECF No. 44 at 2. After finding good case, the Court granted the parties’ 

motion. ECF No. 45. 

On November 21, 2017, the parties filed another “JOINT MOTION TO EXTEND DATES 

REGULATING DISCOVERY AND OTHER PRETRIAL PROCEEDINGS.” ECF No. 52. The parties 

seek to continue the remaining case deadlines by another two to three months. Id. at 2. In 

support, the parties state that they should have asked for a six month continuance in their first 

Case 3:15-cv-02796-JM-BLM Document 53 Filed 11/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2 

15cv2796-JM(BLM) 

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

joint motion to give Plaintiff sufficient time to recover and that “the holidays are now causing 

unavoidable delays.” Id. In further support, the parties state that additional time is needed to 

secure Plaintiff’s deposition, conduct an independent medical examination (“IME”), and to 

conclude discovery. Id. at 3. 

Once a Rule 16 scheduling order is issued, dates set forth therein may be modified only 

“for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); see also ECF No. 31 at 

7 (stating that dates and times “will not be modified except for good cause shown”). The Rule 

16 good cause standard focuses on the “reasonable diligence” of the moving party. Noyes v. 

Kelly Servs., 488 F.3d 1163, 1174 n.6 (9th Cir. 2007); Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 

1271, 1294-95 (9th Cir. 2000) (stating Rule 16(b) scheduling order may be modified for “good 

cause” based primarily on diligence of moving party). Essentially, “the focus of the inquiry is 

upon the moving party’s reasons for seeking modification.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, 

Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). However, a court also may consider the “existence or 

degree of prejudice to the party opposing the modification . . . .” Id. 

The parties have failed to establish good cause for continuing the remaining deadlines by 

another two to three months. Plaintiff’s counsel states that Plaintiff’s health is “starting to 

rebound” and that the parties “are now faced with the delays associated with the holidays”. 

ECF No. 52-1, Declaration of Andre L. Verdun (“Verdun Decl.”) at 2. Therefore, it appears that 

Plaintiff’s health is no longer the motivating factor for the requested continuance, and while the 

Court is sympathetic to the challenges that come with the busy holiday season, that is not good 

cause to extend case deadlines by another two to three months, especially in a case that has 

been pending since December 11, 2015. See ECF No. 1. Additionally, the parties’ decision to 

not propound any discovery at all because Plaintiff could not sit for a deposition or undergo an 

IME does not demonstrate diligence. Verdun Decl. at 2-3. However, given the current status 

of the case and time of year, the Court finds it appropriate to grant the parties a small 

continuance of the deadlines. Accordingly, the parties’ motion is GRANTED IN PART as 

follows: 

/// 

Case 3:15-cv-02796-JM-BLM Document 53 Filed 11/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3 

15cv2796-JM(BLM) 

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

 Current Deadline New Deadline 

Expert Designation January 4, 2018 January 26, 2018 

Rebuttal Experts January 18, 2018 February 16, 2018 

Fact Discovery January 18, 2018 February 16, 2018 

Expert Reports February 16, 2018 March 9, 2018 

Rebuttal Expert Reports March 16, 2018 April 6, 2018 

Expert Discovery April 13, 2018 May 8, 2018 

Dispositive Motions June 15, 2018 June 15, 2018 

Mandatory Settlement Conference September 7, 2018 September 7, 2018 

 at 9:30 a.m. at 9:30 a.m. 

Confidential Settlement Statements August 28, 2018 August 28, 2018 

Memo of Contentions September 21, 2018 September 21, 2018 

Pre-trial Disclosures September 21, 2018 September 21, 2018 

Meet and Confer September 28, 2018 September 28, 2018 

Draft Pretrial Order October 5, 2018 October 5, 2018 

Proposed Final Pretrial Conference Order October 12, 2018 October 12, 2018 

& Objections to Pretrial Disclosures 

Pretrial Conference October 19, 2018 October 19, 2018 

 at 8:30 a.m. at 8:30 a.m. 

 

Trial November 26, 2018 November 26, 2018 

 at 10:00 a.m. at 10:00 a.m. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 11/27/2017 

Case 3:15-cv-02796-JM-BLM Document 53 Filed 11/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3