Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01970/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01970-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 45:51 Railways: Fed. Employer's Liability 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

1 Because oral argument will not be of material

assistance, the court orders this matter submitted on the briefs. 

See E.D. Cal. Local Rule 78-230(h). 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

ROBERT C. CONLEY

NO. CIV. S-04-1970 FCD/GGH

Plaintiff,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD

COMPANY, a corporation,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

Plaintiff Robert Conley (“plaintiff”) moves this court for

an order modifying the pretrial scheduling order to add a new

expert pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b). 

Plaintiff maintains that good cause for the belated designation

of an additional expert exists because defendant Union Pacific

Railroad (“defendant”) only recently produced an audible version

of an audio CD to which the expert is needed to respond. 

Defendant opposes the motion.1

 For the reasons set forth below,

plaintiff’s motion is DENIED. 

Case 2:04-cv-01970-FCD-GGH Document 37 Filed 06/12/07 Page 1 of 5
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 Plaintiff’s counsel represents that he did not receive

a non-defective copy of the audio CD until “shortly before . . .

February 2, 2007." (Mot’n at 2; Furstenthal Aff. at ¶ 5). 

However, defendant presents evidence in his opposition that the

non-defective tape was in fact sent on November 2, 2006. (Opp’n

at 2-3). In his reply, plaintiff does not dispute the November

delivery of the non-defective CD. The court therefore accepts

that the audible copy was sent to plaintiff on November 2, 2006.

2

BACKGROUND

On September 22, 2004, plaintiff filed a complaint in this

action, alleging that he suffered an inhalation injury when he

was exposed to smoke while attempting to extinguish a fire on

board a locomotive engine during the course and scope of work. 

(Compl., Docket #1, filed Sept. 22, 2004). The deadline for

designation of expert witnesses was set for July 11, 2005, and

the discovery deadline was November 16, 2005. (Scheduling Order,

Docket # 8, filed Feb. 25, 2005). On September 1, 2006, the

court held the final pretrial conference, and the court issued

the pretrial order on September 7, 2006. (Pretrial Order, Docket

#18, filed Sept. 7, 2006).

By this motion, plaintiff seeks to add an expert to respond

to an audio CD. Defendant first produced the audio CD on October

6, 2006, but that copy was “inaudible and/or incomplete.” (Aff.

of John Furstenthal, filed May 3, 2007 (“Furstenthal Aff.”), ¶

9). Plaintiff notified defendant on or about the end of October

2006 that the recording was defective, and defendant sent a

nondefective copy on November 2, 2007.2 (Def.’s Opp’n to Pl.’s

Mot. for Leave to Add a New Expert, filed May 25, 2007 (“Opp’n),

at 2-3). 

Case 2:04-cv-01970-FCD-GGH Document 37 Filed 06/12/07 Page 2 of 5
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

The audio CD contains a recording of defendant’s railroad

dispatcher on the day of the alleged injury. The recording

indicates that a crew member from another passing train radioed

the dispatcher and stated that he thought he saw steam from

plaintiff’s locomotive. Plaintiff contends that this raises a

material issue as to the type of locomotive defect involved in

the subject accident. Therefore, plaintiff seeks to add a

locomotive expert to testify regarding smoke or steam releases

from a locomotive where plaintiff was attempting to extinguish a

fire. 

STANDARD

A pretrial order “shall not be modified except upon a

showing of good cause.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b). The district

court may modify the pretrial schedule “if it cannot reasonably

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

Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir.

1992) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 16, advisory committee’s notes

(1983 amendment)). The “good cause” standard set forth in Rule

16 primarily focuses upon the diligence of the party requesting

the amendment. “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.

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

Case 2:04-cv-01970-FCD-GGH Document 37 Filed 06/12/07 Page 3 of 5
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

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.” Jackson v. Laureate,

Inc., 186 F.R.D. 605, 608 (E.D. Cal. 1999)(citations omitted).

ANALYSIS

Defendant argues that plaintiff fails to demonstrate good

cause to support this motion. Defendant asserts that it produced

the subject recording as soon as it discovered the evidence on

October 6, 2006, and it complied with plaintiff’s request for a

non-defective copy of the audio CD on November 2, 2006. (Opp’n

at 1-2). Plaintiff did not file this motion until May 3, 2006. 

As such, defendant contends that plaintiff has not demonstrated

the requisite diligence under Rule 16. The court agrees. 

Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate good cause to amend the

pretrial scheduling order. Defendant does not contest that

plaintiff assisted the court in creating a workable Rule 16

order. Furthermore, noncompliance with the Rule 16 order would

have occurred notwithstanding plaintiff’s efforts to comply

because the audio CD was disclosed after the pretrial scheduling

order was issued. However, good cause also requires that the

moving party was diligent in seeking to amend the Rule 16 order. 

Plaintiff waited six months after disclosure of the audible audio

CD on November 2, 2006 to bring this motion. Such delay does not

comport with the diligence requirement set forth under Rule 16. 

Therefore, plaintiff has not established good cause to amend the

pretrial scheduling order.

Case 2:04-cv-01970-FCD-GGH Document 37 Filed 06/12/07 Page 4 of 5
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 The trial date in this matter was previously set for

May 30, 2007. On May 1, 2007, by minute order, the court vacated

the trial date due to a conflict with a criminal trial already in

progress. (Minute Order, Docket # 28, filed May 1, 2007). Two

days later, plaintiff filed the instant motion. 

5

The court also notes the potential prejudice to defendant

arising out of plaintiff’s filing of this motion in the late

stages of litigation. The court has already held the final

pretrial conference and issued the pretrial order. A jury trial

is scheduled for August 14, 2007.3

Because plaintiff has not demonstrated good cause to modify

the pretrial scheduling order to add an expert, plaintiff’s

motion for leave to add a new expert is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 12, 2007

Case 2:04-cv-01970-FCD-GGH Document 37 Filed 06/12/07 Page 5 of 5