Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-02669/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-02669-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

GERALD WILSON,

CDCR #F-50712,

Case No. 10cv2669 WQH (BGS)

Plaintiff, ORDER: (1) GRANTING

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE

TO EXTEND DISCOVERY; (2)

AMENDING FINAL PRETRIAL

CONFERENCE SCHEDULE AND

MANDATORY SETTLEMENT

CONFERENCE DATE

[DOC. NO. 33.]

vs.

C. DAVIS; E. FONTAN; I. BRAVO; 

M. COLLINS, Correctional Officers,

Defendants.

Gerald Wilson (“Plaintiff”) filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

(Doc. No. 1.) Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that Defendants violated his Eighth Amendment 

right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment when they subjected Plaintiff to excessive

force. (Id. at 3.) Plaintiff alleges that he was slammed to his cell floor and received punches to

his head. (Id. at 5.) Plaintiff further alleges that as he was escorted by Defendant Collins he was

kicked in the head and that after arriving in the “sally port” Defendant Collins also slammed

Plaintiff to the ground and “applied the sole of his boot to Plaintiff’s head.” (Id.) 

///

///

1 10cv2669 WQH (BGS)

Case 3:10-cv-02669-WQH-BGS Document 42 Filed 09/04/12 Page 1 of 8
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

Plaintiff is a prisoner that was proceeding pro se until this Court appointed him pro bono

representation pursuant to General Order 596. (See Doc. No. 22.) Pro bono counsel was

appointed on April 13, 2012. (Id.)

The instant motion concerns Plaintiff’s request to amend the schedule in order to continue

discovery for the purpose of taking two additional depositions. Pl.’s Memo of P&A at 2; Doc.

No. 33-1. Defendants oppose the motion. Defs.’ Opp’n at 4; Doc. No. 34. 

I. Relevant Procedural and Factual Background

Pursuant to the original Case Management Conference Order Regulating Discovery and

Other Pretrial Proceedings, all fact discovery was to be completed no later than October 11,

2011, and all expert discovery was to be completed no later than January 23, 2012. (Doc. No.

14.) Pro bono counsel was appointed on April 13, 2012 and officially substituted in as counsel

of record on April 27, 2012. (Doc. Nos. 22, 24.) 

On June 12, 2012, Plaintiff requested to reopen discovery in order depose Defendants,

as well as to depose Defendants’ expert witness. Joint Mot. to Reopen Discovery at 2; Doc. No.

27. Plaintiff specifically requested to reopen discovery until July 31, 2012. (Id.) Defendants

did not oppose this request and agreed to exchange certain Rule 26 documents, produce

Defendants’ personnel records pertaining to excessive force againstinmates, produceDefendants

for deposition, as well as produce Defendants’ expert for deposition. (Id. at 3.) This Court

granted Plaintiff’s request to reopen discovery in order to take Defendants’ depositions, depose

the expert witness, and to exchange the documents addressed in the motion to reopen discovery. 

(Doc. No. 28.) The deadline to complete the additional discovery was set for July 31, 2012. 

(Id.) 

On July 26, 2012—five days before the discovery deadline—Plaintiff filed the instant

motion seeking an extension of time in order to complete additional discovery. Pl.’s Memo of

P.&A. at 2. Specifically, Plaintiff wants to take two additional witness depositions. Id. The two

witnesses that Plaintiff wants to depose were potentially present outside of Plaintiff’s cell

immediately after and perhaps during the time the alleged excessive force was applied. Id. 

///

2 10cv2669 WQH (BGS)

Case 3:10-cv-02669-WQH-BGS Document 42 Filed 09/04/12 Page 2 of 8
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

II. Plaintiff’s Motion

Plaintiffseeks leave to extend discovery in order to depose two witnesses. (Doc. No. 33.) 

The first witness Plaintiff wants to depose is Officer Pickett. Id. Plaintiff believes Officer

Pickett was present when Plaintiff was escorted by Officer Collins to the Investigative Services

Unit (“ISU”) holding cell, and therefore, had the opportunity to observe whether force was used

during the escort and perhaps even in the cell. Id. at 2-3. Officer Pickett also completed a crime

incident report stating that he witnessed Officer Bravo administer Miranda warnings to Plaintiff. 

Decl. Adler at Ex. A; Doc. No. 33-3.

Plaintiff also wants to depose Sergeant Barlow. Id. at 3. According to testimony from

Officer Collins, Sergeant Barlow “may have been” the third officer that accompanied Plaintiff

to the ISU holding cell, “[t]hus, it is possible that Sergeant Barlow witnessed some of the events

inside [Plaintiff’s] cell” before Plaintiff was escorted to ISU. Pl.’s Memo of P.&A. at 3. 

Furthermore, Plaintiff contends that Sergeant Barlow’s deposition is especially important

because Plaintiff recently learned that Officer Collins—the officer he believed forcefully stood

on his head while he was in the ISU holding cell—is a woman, and therefore, is not likely the 

officer that did in fact stand on his head. Id. at 3 n. 4. Plaintiff testified that the officer that

stepped on his head was male. Decl. Adler at Ex. B; Doc. No. 33-4. Plaintiff’s cell mate

described the officer that stood on Plaintiff’s head as a black man with glasses. Decl. Adler, Ex.

C; Doc. No. 33-5. Officer Collins testified that at the time of the incident Sergeant Barlow was

the ISU squad leader. And according to Plaintiff’s counsel, Sergeant Barlow is an African

American male that wears glasses. Decl Adler at ¶ 8; Doc. No. 33-2.

III. Applicable Legal Standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(1) & (3) state in relevant part, “the district judge or a

magistrate judge when authorized by local rule must issue a scheduling order . . . [it] must limit

the time to join other parties, amend the pleadings, complete discovery, and file motions.” Fed.

R. Civ. P. 16(b)(1) & (3). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) states that a scheduling order

“may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4).

The Court’s inquiry into the “good cause” standard primarily considers the diligence of the party

3 10cv2669 WQH (BGS)

Case 3:10-cv-02669-WQH-BGS Document 42 Filed 09/04/12 Page 3 of 8
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

seeking to amend the scheduling order. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604,

609 (9th Cir. 1992). The Court may modify the pretrial schedule “if it cannot reasonably be met

despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.” Id. (citing to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 advisory

committee’s notes (1983 Amendment)). Carelessness is not compatible with a finding of

diligence and offers no reason to grant relief. Engelson v. Burlington Northern R.R. Co., 972

F.2d 1038, 1043 (9th Cir. 1992); Martella Cooks & Stewards Union, 448 F.2d 729, 730 (9th Cir.

1971). Although the existence or degree of prejudice to the party opposing the modification

might supply additional reasons to deny the motion, the focus of the inquiry is on the moving

party’s reasons for seeking modification. See Gestetner Corp. v. Case Equip. Co., 108 F.R.D.

138, 141 (D. Me. 1985). If the moving party was not diligent, their motion to modify the pretrial

schedule should be denied. Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. 

IV. Analysis

Plaintiff filed the instant motion before the time allotted for discovery ended. (Doc. No.

33.) Thus, the relevant inquiry is whether Plaintiff has presented good cause for amending the

scheduling order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). 

A. Diligence

In this case, Plaintiff was not appointed counsel until after the close of the initial

discovery period. (Doc. No. 22.) Once Plaintiff received counsel, counsel promptly moved to

reopen discovery and began to review documents and schedule Defendants’ depositions. (Doc.

No. 27.) Counsel was diligent in scheduling these depositions, as well as scheduling the

deposition of Defendants’ expert witness. Pl.’s Memo of P.&A. at 6. It appears that counsel

intelligently chose to depose the most pertinent and relevant witnesses first—namely,

Defendants. At the time counsel scheduled the depositions, she believed that Defendant Collins

was the male officer that stood on Plaintiff’s head in the ISU holding cell. Pl.’s Memo of P.&A.

at 3-4, 7. It was not until Officer Collins appeared at the deposition that counsel learned that the

officer was actually female, and therefore, not the male officer that Plaintiff alleges stood on his

head. Based on Officer Collins’ deposition testimony, counsel believes it is necessary to depose

two critical eyewitnesses that are not named Defendants—Officer Pickett and Sergeant Barlow. 

4 10cv2669 WQH (BGS)

Case 3:10-cv-02669-WQH-BGS Document 42 Filed 09/04/12 Page 4 of 8
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

Id. As soon as Plaintiff realized the need to take these additional depositions, she contacted

opposing counsel to meet and confer regarding her request. Defs.’ Opp’n at 4. And as soon as

Plaintiff’s counsel learned that Defendants opposed the request she contacted the Court and filed

the instant motion. Pl.’s Memo of P.&A. at 6. 

Accordingly,Plaintiff’s counsel acted diligentlythroughout the six weeks she was allotted

for discovery and acted diligently in pursuing the additional depositions when it became clear

that Plaintiff needed a brief extension of the discovery period to schedule these depositions. 

Further, Plaintiff would be prejudiced at trial without the opportunity to depose these witnesses. 

See Pl.’s Memo of P.&A. at 7. And because these two prospective deponents are not named

defendants, taking a deposition is the only discovery method available for Plaintiff to garner

information from each witness. As a result, Plaintiff has met his burden of establishing good

cause to amend the scheduling order for the limited purpose of deposing Officer Pickett and

Sergeant Barlow.

 B. Prejudice to Defendants

Because Plaintiff satisfied his burden and established good cause for the additional

discovery, the Court need not consider the prejudice to Defendants in allowing the opposed

discovery. In any event, the Court finds that the potential prejudice to Defendants does not

outweigh Plaintiff’s need for the discovery. 

First, when the parties jointly moved to reopen discovery on June 12, 2012, Defendants

were prepared to continue the date of the Pretrial Conference. (Doc. No. 27 (proposing Pretrial

Conference be moved from October 1, 2012 to November 16, 2012.)) At that time the Court

decided not to continue the Pretrial Conference despite the parties’ request to do so. (Doc. No.

28.) Second, because Defendants are concerned that additional deposition testimony may result

in the need for their expert to consider the testimony in order for him not to be unfairly “locked

into his expert opinions,” the Court will allow Defendants to supplement their expert report to

the extent the additional deposition testimony changes the expert’s opinions. See Defs.’ Opp’n

at 12; Doc. No. 34. Defendants’ expert witness may serve a supplemental expert report, if

necessary, no later than two weeks after the conclusion of the additional depositions. 

5 10cv2669 WQH (BGS)

Case 3:10-cv-02669-WQH-BGS Document 42 Filed 09/04/12 Page 5 of 8
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

Further, the Court will ensure Defendants are not significantly prejudiced by the

additional depositions by limiting the time permitted to take these depositions. Plaintiff may

only depose each witness for a maximum of three-and-a-half hours. Defendants’ counsel may

select whether these depositions should both take place on the same day—for a total of seven

deposition hours—or whether it is more convenient to depose the witnesses on separate days. 

The depositions must be completed no later than September 28, 2012.

V. Conclusion and Amended Pretrial Schedule

For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to extend discovery is

GRANTED. The depositions of Officer Pickett and Sergeant Barlow must be completed no

later than September 28, 2012. Defendants’ expert witness may supplement his report to reflect

any change in his opinions resulting from the additional testimony no later than October 15,

2012.

Accordingly, the Pretrial Conference set for October 1, 2012 is VACATED and RESET

for November 19, 2012 at 11:00 a.m. All corresponding pretrial deadlines are similarly

amended as follows:

A Mandatory Settlement Conference shall be conducted on October 24, 2012, at 1:30 p.m. in

the chambers of Magistrate Judge Bernard G. Skomal . Counsel shall submit confidential settlement 1

statements directly to chambers by courier or may e-mail statements to

efile_Skomal@casd.uscourts.gov no later than October 15, 2012. Each party’s settlement statement

shall set forth the party’s statement of the case, identify controlling legal issues, concisely set out issues

of liability and damages, and shall set forth the party’s settlement position, including the last offer or

demand made by that party, and a separate statement of the offer or demand the party is prepared to make

at the settlement conference. Settlement conference briefs shall not be filed with the Clerk of the

Court, nor shall they be served on opposing counsel.

///

///

The Court welcomes the parties to request additional settlement conferences at any stage in the 1

litigation. The parties may request a settlement conference by jointly calling chambers or by filing a Joint

Motion.

6 10cv2669 WQH (BGS)

Case 3:10-cv-02669-WQH-BGS Document 42 Filed 09/04/12 Page 6 of 8
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

Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 16.3, all party representatives and claims adjusters for insured

defendants with full and unlimited authority to negotiate and enter into a binding settlement, as well as 2

the principal attorney(s) responsible for the litigation, must be present and legally and factually prepared

to discuss and resolve the case at the mandatory settlement conference. Failure to attend the conference

or obtain proper excuse will be considered grounds for sanctions. Because Plaintiff is incarcerated,

counsel shall arrange to have him participate telephonically.

Despite the requirement of Local Rule 16.1(f)(2), the parties should not complete a Memoranda

of Contentions of Fact and Law in this case.

All parties or their counsel shall also fully comply with the Pretrial Disclosure requirements of

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3) on or before October 22, 2012. Failure to comply with these disclosures

requirements could result in evidence preclusion or other sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37.

Counsel shall meet together and take the action required by Local Rule 16.1(f)(4) on or before

October 29, 2012. At this meeting, counsel shall discuss and attempt to enter into stipulations and

agreements resulting in simplification of the triable issues. Counsel shall exchange copies and/or display

all exhibits other than those to be used for impeachment. The exhibits shall be prepared in accordance

with Local Rule 16.1(f)(4)(c). Counsel shall note any objections they have to any other parties’ Pretrial

Disclosures under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3). Counsel shall cooperate in the preparation of the proposed

pretrial conference order. Counsel for the plaintiff has the duty of arranging for meetings of counsel and

for preparation of the Pretrial Order mandated by Civil Local Rule 16.1(f)(6)(c).

Counsel for plaintiff will be responsible for preparing the pretrial order and arranging the

meetings of counsel pursuant to Civil Local Rule 16.1(f). On or before November 5, 2012, plaintiff’s

counsel must provide opposing counsel with the proposed pretrial order for review and approval. 

Opposing counsel must communicate promptly with plaintiff’s attorney concerning any objections to

“Full authority to settle” means that the individuals at the settlement conference must be authorized 2

to fully explore settlement options and to agree at that time to any settlement terms acceptable to the parties.

Heileman Brewing Co., Inc. v. Joseph Oat Corp., 871 F.2d 648 (7th Cir. 1989). The person needs to have

“unfettered discretion and authority” to change the settlement position of a party. Pitman v. Brinker Intl., Inc.,

216 F.R.D. 481, 485-486 (D. Ariz. 2003). The purpose of requiring a person with unlimited settlement authority

to attend the conference includes that the person's view of the case may be altered during the face to face

conference. Id. at 486. A limited or a sum certain of authority is not adequate. Nick v. Morgan’s Foods, Inc.,

270 F.3d 590 (8th Cir. 2001).

7 10cv2669 WQH (BGS)

Case 3:10-cv-02669-WQH-BGS Document 42 Filed 09/04/12 Page 7 of 8
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

form or content of the pretrial order, and both parties should attempt promptly to resolve their

differences, if any, concerning the order.

The proposed final pretrial conference order, including objections counsel have to any other

parties’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3) Pretrial Disclosures, shall be prepared, served and lodged with the

district judge’s chambers on or before November 9, 2012, and shall be in the form prescribed in and in

compliance with Local Rule 16.1 (f)(6). Counsel shall also bring a court copy of the pretrial order to

the pretrial conference.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 4, 2012

Hon. Bernard G. Skomal

U.S. Magistrate Judge

United States District Court

8 10cv2669 WQH (BGS)

Case 3:10-cv-02669-WQH-BGS Document 42 Filed 09/04/12 Page 8 of 8