Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02093/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02093-5/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

CYNTHIA SOMMER,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO MEDICAL

EXAMINER’S OFFICE, GLENN N.

WAGNER, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE,

BONNIE DUMANIS, LAURA GUNN,

 Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 09cv2093-WQH (BGS)

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE

EX PARTE APPLICATION TO AMEND

SCHEDULING ORDER 

[Doc. No. 107]

Procedural Background

Plaintiff, Cynthia Sommer, filed this lawsuit on September 24, 2009. (Doc. No. 1.) On April

26, 2010, Magistrate Judge William McCurine issued a scheduling order. (Doc. No. 30.) The

Scheduling Order set May 24, 2010 as the deadline for moving to amend the pleadings. Id. The parties,

however, only conducted limited document discovery prior to dismissing Plaintiff’s claim against Jose

Centeno in his individual capacity. (Doc. No. 65.) Pursuant to the most recent scheduling orders, all

Case 3:09-cv-02093-CAB-BGS Document 118 Filed 12/21/11 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 09cv2093

fact discovery was to be completed by September 2, 2011 and all expert discovery was to be completed

no later than November 18, 2011. (Doc. Nos. 97, 101.)

Ex Parte Application to Amend Scheduling Order

On December 12, 2011, Plaintiff filed an Ex Parte Application to Amend the Court’s Scheduling

Order to permit Plaintiff to file a motion to amend the complaint. (Doc. No. 107.) Plaintiff argues that

deposition testimony from 16 fact witnesses revealed new evidence supporting her conspiracy and

Deveauraux claims. Plaintiff further argues that the newly discovered facts will bolster the claims in

the original complaint but will not plead new claims or name new parties. (Doc. No. 107 at 5.) 

A. Legal Standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 states that “A schedule may be modified only for good cause

and with the judge’s consent.” When the motion to extend time is made after time has expired, “the

court may, for good cause, extend the time . . . if the party failed to act because of excusable neglect.”

Fed. R. Civ. P 6(b)(1). The determination of excusable neglect takes into account: “(1) the danger of

prejudice; (2) the length of the delay and its potential impact on judicial proceedings; (3) the reasons

for the delay which includes whether it was within the reasonable control of the party seeking to show

excusable neglect; and (4) whether that party acted in good faith.” Coleman v. Blue Cross Blue Shield

of Kan., 487 F. Supp. 2d 1225, 1234-35 (D. Kan. 2007). 

“When the proposed modification is an amendment to the pleadings, 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.’” Hood v. Hartford Life and Accident

Ins. Co., 567 F.Supp. 2d 1221, 1225-26 (citing Jackson v. Laureate, Inc., 186 F.R.D. 605, 608

(E.D.Cal.1999) (citations omitted)). 

///

///

Case 3:09-cv-02093-CAB-BGS Document 118 Filed 12/21/11 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 09cv2093

B. Analysis

Fact depositions began in this case more than one year ago. (Doc. No. 65 at 2.) And in April

2011, the parties requested to amend the scheduling order a second time, but Plaintiff made no mention

of needing to amend the complaint in order to incorporate new facts learned during discovery. In July

2011, Plaintiff requested court approval to take more than 10 fact witness depositions because “recent

discovery” revealed the need to depose four additional witnesses. (Doc. No. 93.) Plaintiff, however,

did not mention the potential need to amend the scheduling order to file a motion to amend the

complaint based on what was learned during the recent discovery. Moreover, in August 2011, the

parties requested that the scheduling order be amended once again to allow more time to complete

expert discovery. (Doc. No. 99.) Nevertheless, Plaintiff did not request that the schedule also be

amended to allow her to file a motion to amend the pleadings based on what was learned during

discovery thus far. 

Notably, Plaintiff should have completed all fact witness depositions more than three months

prior to bringing this motion—the Court specifically ordered that the last fact witness depositions be

completed by September 2, 2011. (Doc. No. 97.) Thus, it appears Plaintiff did not file the instant

request for amendment promptly after ascertaining the need to do so, especially since the stated need

is based on information gleaned from depositions. 

Additionally, there is an indication that Defendants will be unduly prejudiced by allowing

Plaintiff to amend the scheduling order for the purpose of filing a motion to amend the complaint after

discovery has ended. Plaintiff’s request to amend the scheduling order was made less than 10 days

before the December 16, 2011 dispositive motions filing deadline. Plaintiff has not shown any

justification for failing to move to amend the scheduling order and her complaint earlier in the litigation.

At a minimum, Plaintiff should have moved to amend the scheduling order and the complaint around

October 20, 2011, when counsel determined that the complaint needed to be amended. See Decl.

Barber, Doc. No. 107 at 7 (stating that on October 20, 2011, Plaintiff’s counsel attempted to reach an

agreement with Defendants to permit the filing of an amended complaint). 

In order for the Court to determine that Plaintiff was diligent in seeking amendment, Plaintiff

must first specify what new and previously unavailable facts she learned during depositions and the

Case 3:09-cv-02093-CAB-BGS Document 118 Filed 12/21/11 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 09cv2093

particular dates these facts were learned. Plaintiff must also specify why the need to amend the

pleadings could not have been reasonably foreseen or anticipated during any of the previous

amendments to the scheduling order. In addition, Plaintiff must adequately explain why she waited at

least three months after learning the new facts before filing her motion to amend. Accordingly, the

Court does not find that Plaintiff has established good cause to amend the schedule at this late stage in

the case. Plaintiff’s request to amend the scheduling order so that she can file a motion to amend the

complaint is DENIED without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 21, 2011

Hon. Bernard G. Skomal

U.S. Magistrate Judge

United States District Court

Case 3:09-cv-02093-CAB-BGS Document 118 Filed 12/21/11 Page 4 of 4