Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01063/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01063-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Product Liability

---

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 1 All further references to a “Rule” are to the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure, unless otherwise noted.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

TERRI S. O’NEAL, individually

and as successor-in-interest

to the Estate of BENJAMIN L.

BRATT; BARRY M. BRATT,

individually,

NO. CIV S-06-1063 FCD/DAD

Plaintiffs,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORPORATION

d/b/a GLAXOSMITHKLINE, a

Pennsylvania Corporation; and

DOES 1-50,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

This matter is before the court on defendant SmithKline

Beecham Corporation d/b/a GlaxoSmithKline’s (“GSK”) motion to

amend the pretrial scheduling order, pursuant to Rule 16 of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,1 to re-open fact discovery for

the limited purpose of allowing GSK to depose Mr. Robert Henley

///

Case 2:06-cv-01063-FCD-DAD Document 63 Filed 07/25/07 Page 1 of 6
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 Because oral argument will not be of material

assistance, the court orders the matter submitted on the briefs. 

E.D. Cal. L.R. 78-230(h).

2

(“Henley”). Plaintiffs oppose defendant’s motion. For the

reasons set forth below,2

 defendant’s motion is GRANTED.

On April 14, 2006, plaintiffs filed a complaint in the

Superior Court of California, County of El Dorado, alleging

claims for negligence, strict liability, breach of express

warranty, fraud, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. 

Subsequently, in May 2006, the case was removed to this court on

the basis of diversity jurisdiction. On March 2, 2007, the court

issued an Amended Pretrial Scheduling Order, setting the deadline

for factual discovery as June 8, 2007, the deadline for expert

designations as June 29, 2007, and the deadline for expert

discovery as August 6, 2007. On June 9, 2007, the parties filed

and the court granted a joint motion to extend expert discovery

deadlines until August 24, 2007.

Plaintiffs contend that the prescription medication, Paxil,

caused their son to commit suicide. Defendant contends that

there is no evidence that Paxil causes an increased risk of

suicide in teenagers, and that if plaintiffs’ son committed

suicide, he did so because he suffered from under-treated

depression exacerbated by psycho-social stressors. (Def.’s Mot.

to Amend, filed June 28, 2007, at 2). Defendant also contends

that plaintiffs’ claims are time-barred. (Id.)

Through this motion, defendant seeks to re-open fact

discovery in order to depose Henley, a licensed marriage and

family therapist who treated plaintiffs’ son sometime between

Case 2:06-cv-01063-FCD-DAD Document 63 Filed 07/25/07 Page 2 of 6
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

October 1996 and February 1997. Defendant contends that before

May 24, 2007, GSK had no reason to depose Henley. When defense

counsel called Henley on in January 2008, she was informed that

Henley did not have any record of treating plaintiffs’ son and

that he did not remember plaintiffs’ son. (See Aff. of Sarah T.

Sloan (“Sloan Aff.”), Ex. 4 to Def.’s Mot., ¶ 4). Defendant also

contends that plaintiffs testified that plaintiffs’ son had

approximately six or seven sessions with Henley, plaintiffs’ son

revealed little to Henley, and that Henley did not diagnose

plaintiffs’ son. (See Dep. of Barry M. Bratt, Ex. 3 to Def.’s

Mot, at 51-53). However, on May 24, 2007, defendant took the

deposition of Allan R. O’Neal (“O’Neal”), who testified that

plaintiffs’ son saw Henley twice a week for four months. (See

Dep. of Allan R. O’Neal, Ex. 5 to Def.’s Mot. at 25). O’Neal

also testified that shortly after Ben’s death, Henley told him

and at least one of the plaintiffs about possible adverse effects

associated with Paxil. (Id. at 163-64). Defendant asserts that

O’Neal’s deposition testimony put them on notice that Henley may

have information relevant to their defenses relating to

alternative causation and the statute of limitations. 

Subsequently, defendant scheduled Henley’s deposition for June 7

or June 8, 2007. (See Sloan Aff. ¶ 6(f)). However, on

Wednesday, June 6, 2007, Henley learned that he needed heart

surgery and had to postpone his deposition. (Id. ¶ 7). Fact

discovery closed on June 8, 2007.

A pretrial order “shall not be modified except upon a

showing of good cause.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b). The district

court may modify the pretrial schedule “if it cannot reasonably

Case 2:06-cv-01063-FCD-DAD Document 63 Filed 07/25/07 Page 3 of 6
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

be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.” 

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

1992) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 16, advisory committee’s notes

(1983 amendment)). The “good cause” standard set forth in Rule

16 primarily focuses upon the diligence of the party requesting

the amendment. “Although the existence or degree of prejudice to

the party opposing the modification might supply additional

reasons to deny a motion, the focus of the inquiry is upon the

moving party’s reasons for seeking modification.” Id. 

The moving party may establish good cause by showing “(1)

that [he or she] was diligent in assisting the court in creating

a workable Rule 16 order; (2) that [his or her] noncompliance

with a Rule 16 deadline occurred or will occur, notwithstanding

[his or her] diligent efforts to comply, because of the

development of matters which could not have been reasonably

foreseen or anticipated at the time of the Rule 16 scheduling

conference; and (3) that [he or she] was diligent in seeking

amendment of the Rule 16 order, once it became apparent that [he

or she] could not comply with the order.” Jackson v. Laureate,

Inc., 186 F.R.D. 605, 608 (E.D. Cal. 1999)(citations omitted).

Plaintiffs do not dispute that GSK assisted the court in

creating a workable Rule 16 order or that GSK sought to amend the

order within a reasonable time period. (Pls.’ Opp’n., filed July

13, 2007, at 3). Rather, plaintiffs contend that GSK was not

diligent in pursuing discovery throughout the entire discovery

period. (Id.) Specifically, plaintiffs assert that defendants

waited until the end of the discovery period to notice

depositions. Plaintiffs also assert that Henley has already

Case 2:06-cv-01063-FCD-DAD Document 63 Filed 07/25/07 Page 4 of 6
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

5

indicated that he did not remember plaintiffs’ son, and as such,

there is no good cause for allowing defendant to depose him.

Defendant presents evidence that it could not take the

deposition of O’Neal until May 24, 2007 because, despite weeks of

searching, O’Neal was not found by defense counsel until April

30, 2007. (Sloan Aff. ¶ 13). May 24, 2007 was the first day

that O’Neal said he was available. (Id. ¶ 14). Defendant also

presents evidence that O’Neal’s deposition testimony was the

first notice it received that Henley might have information

highly relevant to its case. As such, defendant has demonstrated

that it has diligently pursued discovery in this action relating

to information potentially held by Henley. 

In regards to plaintiffs’ contention that Henley does not

have relevant information to provide in a deposition, the court

will not speculate as to the possible content of Henley’s

testimony. The deposition of O’Neal revealed that Henley may

have had more extensive contact with plaintiffs’ than defendant

was previously aware. Moreover, the court will not deny

defendant the opportunity to depose a witness who may have highly

relevant information based solely upon an unsworn representation

made to defendant’s counsel.

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 2:06-cv-01063-FCD-DAD Document 63 Filed 07/25/07 Page 5 of 6
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

6

Therefore, good cause having been shown, defendant’s motion

to amend the pretrial scheduling order to re-open factual

discovery for the limited purpose of allowing defendant to take

the deposition of Mr. Robert Henley is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 25, 2007

Case 2:06-cv-01063-FCD-DAD Document 63 Filed 07/25/07 Page 6 of 6