Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-01038/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-01038-3/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

1

 Pursuant to the November 10, 2009 scheduling order, the discovery completion

deadline is July 8, 2010, and any motions to compel discovery must be noticed for hearing no

later than June 9, 2010. Dckt. No. 24.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IRWIN DOUGLAS,

No. CIV 09-1038 FCD EFB PS

Plaintiff,

vs.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY, et al., 

ORDER

Defendants.

___________________________/

This action is before the undersigned pursuant to Eastern District of California Local

Rule 302(c)(21). See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). On January 21, 2010, defendants filed an ex parte

application to modify the status (pretrial scheduling) order issued by the undersigned on

November 10, 2009. Dckt. Nos. 25, 26. Specifically, defendants seek to continue the initial

expert disclosure deadline from February 8, 2010 to March 15, 2010 and the rebuttal expert

disclosure deadline from March 8, 2010 to April 19, 2010.1

 Id. at 1. Defendants contend that an

extension is necessary because defendants do not have access to plaintiff’s sealed arrest records,

which are at the heart of plaintiff’s unlawful arrest claim, and until those records are unsealed,

defendants’ expert cannot prepare an accurate and timely report. Id. at 2. 

Case 2:09-cv-01038-KJM-EFB Document 27 Filed 01/22/10 Page 1 of 3
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

2

 Local Rule 144, which permits extensions of time and for matters to be heard on

shortened time, provides that “[a]pplications to shorten time shall set forth by affidavit of

counsel the circumstances claimed to justify the issuance of an order shortening time [and] will

not be granted except upon affidavit of counsel showing a satisfactory explanation for the need

for the issuance of such an order and for the failure of counsel to obtain a stipulation for the

issuance of such an order from other counsel or parties in the action.” 

2

Defendants contend that they “are awaiting the currently scheduled February 4, 2010,

hearing in Sacramento Superior Criminal Court regarding Defendants’ Petition to Unseal

Plaintiff’s Douglas’ Records,” and “[a]ssuming arguendo the Superior Court hears the matter on

that day and orders release of the arrest records at the hearing, Defendants ‘Rule 26’ expert and

Plaintiff’s expert witness, if any, will need time to analyze the records and prepare an accurate

report for the purposes of the initial expert disclosure.” Id. Defendants further state that “[t]he

nexus of Plaintiff Douglas’ Complaint . . . is that he was arrested without a warrant and is now

seeking remedy as against the arresting agency and officers. Without access to the underlying

criminal record and the warrant upon which he was apparently arrested on the date in question,

Defendants’ ‘Rule 26’ expert cannot properly assess this allegation and accurately prepare an

expert report.” Id. Defendants believe that there will be a warrant within the sealed records, and

anticipate that their Rule 26 expert “will offer testimony in regard to the named officers’ reliance

upon the valid warrant.” Id.

A schedule may be modified upon a showing of good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b). Good

cause exists when the moving party demonstrates he cannot meet the deadline despite exercising

due diligence. 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.

 Here, although defendants’ ex parte application is not in strict compliance with the Local

Rules,2

 the application is supported by good cause. Defendants have demonstrated that they

cannot meet the expert disclosure deadlines despite exercising due diligence. It also appears that

Case 2:09-cv-01038-KJM-EFB Document 27 Filed 01/22/10 Page 2 of 3
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

3

there would be little, if any, prejudice to plaintiff as a result of the extensions, since those

extensions do not impact the other deadlines set forth in the November 10, 2009 scheduling

order. Therefore, in light of the quickly approaching initial expert disclosure deadline,

defendants’ application will be granted.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants’ ex parte application to modify the November 10, 2009 scheduling order,

Dckt. Nos. 25, 26, is granted. 

2. The parties shall make their initial expert disclosures on or before March 15, 2010,

and shall make their rebuttal expert disclosures on or before April 19, 2010. These

modifications do not impact any of the other deadlines set forth in the November 10, 2009

scheduling order. 

SO ORDERED. 

DATED: January 22, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-01038-KJM-EFB Document 27 Filed 01/22/10 Page 3 of 3