Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00558/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00558-16/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1983 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

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VICENTE BENAVIDES FIGUEROA,

Plaintiff,

 v.

KERN COUNTY, et al.

Defendants.

Case No. 1:19-cv-00558-ADA-CDB

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART STIPULATED 

REQUEST TO MODIFY THE DISCOVERY 

SCHEDULE

(Doc. 90)

Pending before the Court is the parties’ request to modify the discovery schedule – the 

fourth such stipulated or unopposed request filed by one or more of the parties since October 28, 

2022. (Doc. 90). 

The case was scheduled on May 3, 2021. (Doc. 59). In their pre-scheduling conference 

joint report, the parties represented they would “work together to produce electronic, digital 

and/or magnetic data if such exists.” (Doc. 58 at 8). Consistent with their joint request (id. at 7), 

the Court set a 19-month window for the parties to undertake and complete fact discovery. 

Shortly after entry of the initial scheduling order, the Court entered an amended order that 

preserved the previously scheduled case management dates without changes. (Doc. 63).

In advance of the mid-discovery status conference, on January 28, 2022, the parties filed 

a joint report in which they represented that they required no modifications to the scheduling 

order.

Case 1:19-cv-00558-KES-CDB Document 91 Filed 05/16/23 Page 1 of 4
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

2

On October 28, 2022, the parties filed a stipulation for order continuing all discovery, 

pretrial motion and trial dates by approximately 90 days. (Doc. 79). Based largely on the 

parties’ representations that they had undertaken discovery diligently but that additional time 

nevertheless was required because of the “huge breadth of topics and demands” before the 

depositions of Defendant County of Kern’s Rule 30(b)(6) witnesses (id. at 1-2), the Court 

granted the parties’ request for a 90-day extension of all case management dates. (Doc. 80).

Approximately three months later, the parties filed their second request for an even more 

expansive extension of all case management dates based on the continuing unavailability of 

defendant Robert Carbone to appear for deposition and due to the same “voluminous discovery 

at issue” that the parties relied upon for their earlier requested extension. (Doc. 82). Given the 

parties’ failure to file any affidavits or declarations in support of their request as required 

consistent with the operative scheduling order, the Court reluctantly agreed to extend case 

management dates by six weeks. (Doc. 83).

One month later, Defendants filed an unopposed motion seeking a third extension of 

discovery dates but keeping the pretrial motion and trial dates unchanged. (Doc. 84). The Court 

granted the request. (Doc. 88).

Now, in their fourth, pending request for a further extension of case management dates –

filed on the last business day before the close of fact discovery – the parties seek another threemonth extension of all discovery, pretrial motion and trial dates. (Doc. 90). First, the parties 

report that certain unfinished discovery efforts remain ongoing: Defendant County of Kern is

preparing to respond to Plaintiff’s third set of interrogatories (served on Defendants on April 10, 

2023) and the parties plan to complete a continued deposition of one of Defendant’s Rule 

30(b)(6) deponents on May 26, 2023 (ten days after the close of fact discovery). (Id. at 2). 

Second, counsel for Defendant County of Kern attests that his office learned on May 10, 2023, 

“that the Kern County District Attorney had located a cache of cassette tapes with labels that 

indicated they were related to the Benavides matter.” (Doc. 90-1 at ¶ 5). As of the date of the 

filing of the parties’ stipulated request for an extension of case management dates (May 12, 

2023), counsel represents that cassettes currently are being processed and digitized.

Case 1:19-cv-00558-KES-CDB Document 91 Filed 05/16/23 Page 2 of 4
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

Neither counsel in his declaration nor the parties in the stipulation provide any further 

information for the Court’s consideration in determining whether good cause exists for the 

requested extension of case management dates. The parties’ filings raise more questions than 

they answer. Among other things, based on the pleadings, it seems unfathomable that materials

(such as the belatedly discovered cassette tapes) that counsel represents are “related to the 

Benavides matter” were not the subject of earlier discovery demands or production requirements 

such that, through reasonable diligence, they would have been discovered and produced before 

now.1

The Court commends Defendant County of Kern for seeking expeditious processing and 

review of the cassette tapes immediately after they were identified; however, the Court is in no 

position given the dearth of information before it to make the required good cause finding – two 

years into the period of now-closed fact discovery – to grant the parties’ requested, fourth 

extension of case management dates.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that the date to complete non-expert discovery 

shall be extending to May 26, 2023, for the limited purpose of (1) requiring Defendant County of 

Kern time to respond to Plaintiff’s third set of interrogatories, and (2) permitting the parties to 

complete a continued deposition of one of Defendant County of Kern’s Rule 30(b)(6) deponents, 

currently scheduled for May 26, 2023.

It is FURTHER ORDERED that the parties’ request for amendments to all other case 

management dates is DENIED.

Given counsel for Defendant County of Kern’s representations that the cassette tapes 

addressed in the parties’ stipulation are related to the “Benavides matter,” notwithstanding the 

close of non-expert discovery for all but the two excepted discovery matters discussed above, the 

Court acknowledges Defendant (and/or its counsel) likely has statutory, rule-based and ethical 

obligations to complete the ongoing media processing described in the parties’ stipulation and 

1 Thus, for instance, the parties previously represented to the Court that Plaintiff requested 

in October 2022 documents related to prior child molestation cases prosecuted by the District 

Attorney. (Doc. 82 at 2).

Case 1:19-cv-00558-KES-CDB Document 91 Filed 05/16/23 Page 3 of 4
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

make available to Plaintiff any material deemed responsive to outstanding discovery demands. 

As explained above, the Court presently is unable to make a good cause finding for the requested 

discovery extension; that, however, does not relieve any party or counsel of complying with 

discovery obligations imposed by statute or rule.

In all other respects, the Second Amended Scheduling Order (Doc. 83) remains controlling. 

Further requests for discovery, motion or trial extensions are strongly discouraged and no requests 

for extension will be granted without a showing of diligence by the parties and good cause.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 15, 2023 ___________________ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-00558-KES-CDB Document 91 Filed 05/16/23 Page 4 of 4