Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-02477/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-02477-1/pdf.json

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

---

1

14cv2477-MMA-MDD

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JESSIE W. JONES,

Plaintiff, 

v.

F. GARDINER,

Defendant. 

Case No.: 14cv2477-MMA-MDD

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART JOINT 

MOTION TO AMEND PRETRIAL 

SCHEDULING ORDER

[ECF No. 42]

I. INTRODUCTION

Jessie W. Jones (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding through 

counsel, and F. Gardish Gardiner (“Defendant”) jointly filed a motion to 

amend the pretrial scheduling order. (ECF No. 42). Plaintiff requests the 

Court reopen discovery for the limited purpose of Plaintiff taking the 

depositions of Defendant and fact witness, Lt. Coyne. (Id. at 2). Defendant 

opposes Plaintiff’s request and instead moves the Court to mutually reopen 

expert discovery. (Id. at 7).

II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On April 8, 2015, this Court issued a scheduling order regulating 

Case 3:14-cv-02477-MMA-MDD Document 43 Filed 05/18/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

14cv2477-MMA-MDD

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

discovery and other pre-trial proceedings. (ECF No. 8). Pursuant to the 

scheduling order, initial expert disclosures were due on August 7, 2015, and 

rebuttal disclosures were due on September 11, 2015. (Id. at 1). Discovery 

closed on October 9, 2015. (Id. at 2). Neither party disclosed experts, but 

Defendant did take Plaintiff’s deposition. (ECF No. 42 at 4; see ECF No. 10). 

On November 13, 2015, Defendant filed a motion for summary 

judgment. (ECF No. 14). On April 14, 2016 District Judge Anello denied 

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 27). Counsel were 

appointed to represent Plaintiff in November of 2016, more than a year after 

discovery closed. (ECF No. 34). On February 21, 2017, District Judge Anello 

issued a pretrial scheduling order, which set May 5, 2017 as the deadline for 

“[a]ny remaining discovery matters, including requests to re-open discovery.” 

(ECF No. 40 at 1). 

III. DISCUSSION

A scheduling order “may be modified only for good cause and with the 

judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). The “good cause” standard 

“primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” 

Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). 

Courts have permitted the reopening of discovery where a state prisoner 

proceeding pro se moved to reopen discovery following the appointment of 

counsel after the discovery cutoff date. See, e.g., Draper v. Rosario, No. S-10-

0032 KJM EFB, 2013 WL 6198945, at *2-3 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 27, 2013); 

Woodard v. City of Menlo Park, No. C 09-3331 SBA, 2012 WL 2119278, at *1-

2 (N.D. Cal. June 11, 2012); Henderson v. Peterson, No. C 07-2838 SBA PR, 

2011 WL 441206, at *1-2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 3, 2011).

Plaintiff argues he has good cause to re-open discovery for the limited 

purpose of taking two depositions because he “was unable to depose 

Case 3:14-cv-02477-MMA-MDD Document 43 Filed 05/18/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

14cv2477-MMA-MDD

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

Defendant and Lt. Coyne before discovery closed, due to his pro se and 

inmate status.” (ECF No. 42 at 3). Defendant contends that “Plaintiff had 

ample opportunity to conduct depositions by written questions pursuant to 

FRCP 31 . . . . [and] could have propounded interrogatories to Defendant.” 

(Id. at 6). Defendant further opposes Plaintiff’s request on the grounds that 

both Defendant and Lt. Coyne “provided declarations in support of 

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment . . . . [and Plaintiff] had an 

opportunity to request further discovery before he filed his opposition to the 

motion. . . .” (Id.). Defendant asserts that he “will be prejudiced if Plaintiff 

alone is provided additional time to conduct discovery” and argues that the 

Court should permit a “mutual reopening of discovery to allow Defendant to 

identify expert witnesses” to assist the jury on causation and damages issues. 

(Id. at 7). Plaintiff notes that Defendant’s counsel’s deliberate choice not to

engage in expert discovery does not justify reopening discovery. (Id. at 5).

The Court finds good cause to permit Plaintiff to conduct depositions of 

Defendant and Lt. Coyne. This additional fact discovery will assist in 

resolving the matter on the merits and will not prejudice Defendant. The 

Court does not find Defendant diligently pursued expert discovery. As 

previously indicated, initial expert disclosures were due August 7, 2015 and 

rebuttals were due September 11, 2015. Neither Plaintiff nor Defendant 

disclosed experts by that deadline. Defendant’s failure to pursue expert 

discovery as a litigation strategy does not constitute good cause to reopen

expert discovery.

IV. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART

the parties’ joint motion to amend the pretrial scheduling order as follows:

1. Plaintiff’s request to reopen discovery for the limited purpose of 

Case 3:14-cv-02477-MMA-MDD Document 43 Filed 05/18/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

14cv2477-MMA-MDD

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

conducting two depositions is GRANTED. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 

the discovery deadline is extended to June 19, 2017 for the limited purpose 

of permitting Plaintiff to depose Defendant and Lt. Coyne.

2. Defendant’s request to reopen expert discovery is DENIED.

All other dates, deadlines and requirements set forth in the April 8, 

2015 scheduling order [ECF No. 8] and the February 21, 2017 pretrial 

scheduling order [ECF No. 40] remain as previously set.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 18, 2017

Case 3:14-cv-02477-MMA-MDD Document 43 Filed 05/18/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4