Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02818/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02818-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-(Citizenship)

---

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

 Because oral argument will not be of material assistance, 1

the Court orders this matter submitted on the briefs. E.D. Cal.

Local Rule 78-230(h). 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN SACA, an individual,

No. 2:06-CV-02818-MCE-EFB

Plaintiffs,

v. ORDER

JUAN-PABLO MOLYNEUX, and J.P. 

MOLYNEUX STUDIO, LTD.,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

On November 6, 2007, Plaintiff John Saca ("Plaintiff") moved

to modify the Pretrial Scheduling Order ("PTSO") based on

Defendants’ alleged failure to cooperate in the discovery

process. As explained below, the Court finds good cause to amend

the PTSO.1

///

///

Case 2:06-cv-02818-MCE -EFB Document 143 Filed 12/18/07 Page 1 of 7
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

BACKGROUND

The current dispute is but one of many in this highly

contentious case. Plaintiff has thus far filed approximately 17

motions to compel discovery. Despite Defendants’ claims that

they were diligent and acted in good faith during the discovery

process, the magistrate judge has consistently granted

Plaintiff’s motions and has sanctioned Defendants at least twice.

The various discovery disputes and the magistrate judge’s

decisions on those disputes are fully documented in the docket

need not be rehashed here. Plaintiff’s counsel began in early

March 2007, to seek agreeable dates for the depositions of eight

individuals. Plaintiff also propounded interrogatories and

requests for production of documents. 

After repeated disagreements regarding the deposition dates

and failure to respond to depositions duces tecum, Plaintiff

filed motions to compel depositions and to compel production of

documents. The magistrate judge granted the motions and set the

deposition dates during the week of November 26, 2007. The

magistrate judge also ordered Defendants to provide all necessary

documents and to respond to interrogatories. That order also

provides that all privileges, excepting the attorney-client

privilege and the work product doctrine, are waived due to

Defendants’ generic repeated responses to interrogatories. 

Finally, the magistrate judge ordered Defendants to pay sanctions

for costs incurred by Plaintiff in preparing the motion to

compel. 

///

Case 2:06-cv-02818-MCE -EFB Document 143 Filed 12/18/07 Page 2 of 7
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

After the hearing and before the depositions took place,

Defendants produced to Plaintiff’s copy service approximately

6,000 pages of documents and 18 compact discs containing

electronic files. Accordingly, the magistrate judge extended the

depositions, granted Plaintiff an additional seven-hour day for

Defendant Juan Pablo Molyneux’s deposition in Sacramento if

necessary, and again sanctioned Defendants.

Plaintiff now seeks an order modifying the PTSO to allow

Plaintiff additional time (90 days) to complete discovery, but

not to allow the same additional time for Defendant. Plaintiff

argues that in light of the recent delivery of approximately

6,000 pages of discovery and 18 CDs of electronic files, and the

timing of the upcoming depositions, Plaintiff needs additional

time to review the newly produced documents and evaluate other

possible discovery needs. Plaintiff also seeks an extension of

the deadline for expert witness disclosures by the same period of

time. 

Plaintiff argues he has been diligent in his ongoing efforts

to meet the discovery deadline, as evidenced by the magistrate

judge’s orders and sanctions against Defendants. Plaintiff

further argues that because Defendants have intentionally

thwarted the discovery process, they are not entitled to an

extension of their discovery deadline. Therefore, Plaintiff

requests that the court modify the PTSO such that Plaintiff’s

discovery deadline is extended by three months and the deadline

for expert witnesses be extended by three months for both

parties.

///

Case 2:06-cv-02818-MCE -EFB Document 143 Filed 12/18/07 Page 3 of 7
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

Defendants argue that the PTSO should not be modified

because Plaintiff has not established good cause and because

Defendants have acted in good faith. Alternatively, if the Court

does allow the modification, Defendants request that it apply to

both parties equally.

STANDARD

Generally, the Court is required to enter a pretrial

scheduling order within 120 days of the filing of the complaint. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b). The scheduling order "controls the

subsequent course of the action" unless modified by the Court. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(e). Orders entered before the final pretrial

conference may be modified upon a showing of "good cause," Fed.

R. Civ. P. 16(b), but orders "following a final pretrial

conference shall be modified only to prevent manifest injustice." 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(e); see also Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations,

975 F.2d 604, 608 (9th Cir. 1992)

Rule 16(b)'s "good cause" standard primarily considers the

diligence of the party seeking the amendment. Johnson v. Mammoth

Recreations, 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). The district

court may modify the pretrial schedule "if it cannot reasonably

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

Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 advisory committee's notes (1983 amendment);

Id. Moreover, carelessness is not compatible with a finding of

diligence and offers no reason for a grant of relief. Id.

///

///

Case 2:06-cv-02818-MCE -EFB Document 143 Filed 12/18/07 Page 4 of 7
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

5

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. If that party was not

diligent, the inquiry should end. Id.

ANALYSIS

At the outset, the Court notes that the parties in this case

have been loathe to agree or cooperate on the numerous discovery

issues that have arisen in this case. To put it lightly, the

conduct of the parties has been less than commendable. That

being said, the Court finds good cause to amend the PTSO based on

the fact that the parties have, in fact, acted diligently - if

not civilly.

Plaintiff has propounded his discovery and where Defendant

has failed to respond appropriately, Plaintiff has moved to

compel. The magistrate judge has found for Plaintiff on a

substantial portion of his discovery motions and has ordered

sanctions against the Defendants at least twice. The parties

have spent over eight months attempting to coordinate Defendant

Juan Pablo Molyneux’s deposition, as well as the depositions of

other agents of Defendants, and Plaintiff has had to seek an

order compelling his deposition. The time spent preparing and

arguing the multiple motions to compel undoubtedly detracted from

Plaintiff’s ability to conduct discovery in this case. 

///

///

Case 2:06-cv-02818-MCE -EFB Document 143 Filed 12/18/07 Page 5 of 7
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

6

Finally, mere weeks before Defendants’ depositions were set to

commence, Defendants produced to Plaintiff over 6,000 pages of

documents and 18 CDs containing electronic files. This

production caused the magistrate judge to continue those

depositions and to issue an order directing Defendants to produce

all documents responsive to Plaintiff’s previously pending

requests.

Because Plaintiff has been diligent in conducting discovery

in this matter, the Court finds good cause to extend the

discovery deadline and the expert disclosure deadline by three

months. The Court will not, however, grant the unilateral

extension requested by Plaintiff. The Court finds no authority,

and Plaintiff cites none, that would provide for a unilateral

extension of the discovery deadline. This Court finds that an

extension allowing Plaintiff to conduct discovery while

prohibiting Defendants from conducting responsive or rebuttal

discovery would amount to a non-monetary sanction that is not

supported by the record before the Court.

However, the parties (particularly the Defendant) are now 

advised that the Court is now aware of the of the less than civil 

manner in which the parties are litigating this case. Although a

unilateral discovery extension is not justified at this time, if

the overly contentious conditions of this case do not improve,

such an order may be warranted in the future.

///

///

///

///

Case 2:06-cv-02818-MCE -EFB Document 143 Filed 12/18/07 Page 6 of 7
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

7

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the Pretrial Scheduling

Order entered May 3, 2007, shall be amended. All non-expert

discovery shall be completed not later than March 19, 2008 and

the parties shall designate expert witnesses not later than

May 19, 2008.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 17, 2007

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-02818-MCE -EFB Document 143 Filed 12/18/07 Page 7 of 7