Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01487/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01487-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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 06cv1487

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CARL BRYAN, Civil No. 06cv1487-LAB (CAB)

Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO EXTEND REBUTTAL

EXPERT DESIGNATION DEADLINE

[Doc. No. 30]

v.

BRIAN McPHERSON; PAUL CROOK;

CORONADO POLICE DEPARTMENT; CITY

OF CORONADO,

Defendants.

On May 18, 2007, Plaintiff moved to extend the cut-off date for rebuttal expert designation from

April 19, 2007, to May 21, 2007. Defendants filed an opposition. For the reasons below, Plaintiff’s

motion is granted. 

On December 4, 2006, this Court held a telephonic Case Management Conference and, upon

conferring with the parties and counsel of record, issued a Scheduling Order. [Doc. # 17]. Under the

Order, the parties were to designate their experts on or before April 5, 2007; designate their rebuttal

experts on or before April 19, 2007; provide expert reports on or before June 4, 2007; provide rebuttal

expert reports on or before June 18, 2007; and to complete discovery on or before July 9, 2007. On

April 13, 2007, Plaintiff moved to extend the discovery dates by 60 to 90 days. [Doc. # 21]. Having

found that no good cause was shown for an extension, the Court denied the motion. [Doc. # 25]. 

Plaintiff now argues that Defendants would not be prejudiced by an extension of the rebuttal

expert designation deadline because Defendants have not yet provided their expert reports, and because

Case 3:06-cv-01487-LAB-CAB Document 32 Filed 05/22/07 Page 1 of 2
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 06cv1487

the discovery cut-off is not until July 9, 2007. Plaintiff intends to designate an expert on the use of a

TASER gun. Plaintiff has consulted with an expert, Mr. Roger Clark, “who will be able to provide a

report shortly after designation and before the discovery cut-off.” (Pl.’s Mot., 1:22-23). Plaintiff’s

counsel was unable to designate an expert timely because the counsel has been engaged in a criminal

trial. (Id., 1:25-26). 

“Rule 16(b)’ s ‘good cause’” standard primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the

amendment. The district court may modify the pretrial schedule ‘if it cannot reasonably be met despite

the diligence of the party seeking the extension.’ ” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d

604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). “In these days of heavy caseloads, trial courts ... set schedules and establish

deadlines to foster the efficient treatment and resolution of cases.” Wong v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal.,

410 F.3d 1052, 1060 (9th Cir. 2005). Plaintiff’s counsel filed his motion over a month after the deadline

for rebuttal designation passed, calling his diligence into question. Plaintiff’s counsel also has not

shown that the criminal trial that allegedly prevented him from working on this case came up as an

emergency, or why he could not plan for his discovery needs in advance. Bearing in mind the potential

prejudice to Plaintiff from lack of his own expert, however, the Court will grant this motion. The

prejudice to Defendants does not appear as serious since the expert reports have not been exchanged yet,

and the discovery cut-off does not pass until July 9, 2007. The deadlines for exchanging expert reports,

as well as the discovery cut-off, will not be continued. 

Accordingly, the rebuttal expert designation deadline is extended until and including May 21,

2007. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 22, 2007

CATHY ANN BENCIVENGO

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-01487-LAB-CAB Document 32 Filed 05/22/07 Page 2 of 2