Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00305/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00305-1/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

J.K.G., a minor,

Plaintiff,

v.

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, a public

entity; SAN DIEGO COUNTY

SHERIFF THOMAS SEIVER; SAN

DIEGO COUNTY SHERIFF DEPUTY

DETECTIVE BARBARA CROZIER; SAN

DIEGO COUNTY SHERIFF DEPUTY

JASON WARD; SAN DIEGO COUNTY

SHERIFF DEPUTY PAUL MEHAFFIE,

III; SAN DIEGO COUNTY SHERIFF

SERGEANT GEORGE CALDERON; DOES

1-50 inclusive

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 11cv0305 JLS(RBB)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF

J.K.G., AN INDIVIDUAL'S, EX

PARTE MOTION FOR CONTINUING

DISCOVERY CUT-OFF DATES [ECF

NO. 34]

On August 30, 2012, Plaintiff filed an Ex Parte Motion for

Continuing Discovery Cut-Off Dates [ECF No. 34]. In the Motion,

Plaintiff seeks to continue the "discovery cut-off dates for

service of expert witness lists and reports, written discovery, and

discovery completion dates for [sic]." (Pl. J.K.G.['s] Ex Parte

Mot. 1, ECF No. 34.) Plaintiff's counsel indicates that she has

"an expert law enforcement consultant," but "to designate him as an

1 11cv0305 JLS(RBB)

Case 3:11-cv-00305-JLS-RBB Document 36 Filed 09/05/12 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

Expert Witness and submit a complete report pursuant to Rule 26(f),

Plaintiff will need to take depositions and obtain factual

information via written discovery." (Id. at 2.) No explanation

has been given for failing to take depositions or serve written

discovery while this action has been pending.

Although Plaintiff's counsel states that she intends to serve

written discovery prior to the current deadline, September 4, 2012,

she nevertheless requests that the deadline to designate experts,

for written discovery, and the discovery cutoff all be extended

ninety days. (Id. at 2-3.) The current deadline for Plaintiff's

expert designation is September 4, 2012, and the discovery cutoff

is November 5, 2012. (Id. at 2.) 

Counsel for Plaintiff contacted defense counsel who "indicated

that while he couldn't stipulate to a continuance of the date for

Plaintiff's designation, he would not oppose an ex parte motion for

continuance of the expert designation dates." (Id. at 3.) 

According to Plaintiff, "Defense counsel suggested a 90 day

extension for this [expert designations] and other discovery." 

(Id.) Counsel does not refer to other scheduled dates. But a

ninety-day extension of the discovery cutoff would necessarily

impact the deadline for filing pretrial motions.

I.

AMENDING THE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE ORDER

On February 2, 2012, the Court held an early neutral

evaluation conference in this case [ECF No. 24]. At the time of

the conference, an order was issued setting deadlines for the

parties to hold a rule 26(f) conference, February 27, 2012, and

make their initial disclosures, March 25, 2012. (Order Foll. Early

2 11cv0305 JLS(RBB)

Case 3:11-cv-00305-JLS-RBB Document 36 Filed 09/05/12 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

Neutral Eval. Conf. 2, ECF No. 24.) To date, Plaintiff has not

initiated any discovery. (See Pl. J.K.G.['s] Ex Parte Motion 2,

ECF No. 34.) 

Plaintiff seeks a ninety-day extension of certain pretrial

dates which have elapsed or will soon.

A district court has broad discretion in supervising the

pretrial stage of an action. C.F. v. Capistrano Unified Sch.

Dist., 654 F.3d 975, 984 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Miller v. Safeco

Title Ins. Co., 758 F.2d 364, 369 (9th Cir. 1985)). The court

should not amend a scheduling order that was issued unless the

party requesting the modification can show good cause. Fed. R.

Civ. P. 16(b)(4). "Rule 16(b)'s '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). "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.; see Capistrano Unified Sch. Dist.,

654 F.3d at 984.

Deadlines are not options. "Allowing parties to disregard

instructions of a scheduling order would undermine the court's

ability to control its docket, disrupt the agreed-upon course of

the litigation, and reward the indolent and cavalier. Rule 16 was

drafted to prevent this situation." Sokol Holdings, Inc. V. BMB

Munai, Inc., No. 05-cv-3749, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100478, at *17

(S.D.N.Y. Oct. 28, 2009) (citation omitted) (internal quotation

marks omitted). 

3 11cv0305 JLS(RBB)

Case 3:11-cv-00305-JLS-RBB Document 36 Filed 09/05/12 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

The standard for amending a scheduling order was described in

Zivkovic v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080 (9th Cir. 2002). 

"The pretrial schedule may be modified 'if it cannot reasonably be

met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.'" 

Id. at 1087 (quoting Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d

at 608). "If the party seeking the modification 'was not diligent,

the inquiry should end' . . . ." Id. 

Here, the Plaintiff's Ex Parte Application does not show

diligence and good cause. Plaintiff's Ex Parte Application is

DENIED.

DATED: September 5, 2012 _____________________________

Ruben B. Brooks, Magistrate Judge

United States District Court

cc:

Judge Sammartino

All Parties of Record

I:\Chambers Brooks\CASES\_1983\J.K.G.0305\OrderDenyExParteMot34.wpd 4 11cv0305 JLS(RBB)

Case 3:11-cv-00305-JLS-RBB Document 36 Filed 09/05/12 Page 4 of 4