Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01118/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01118-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 310
Nature of Suit: Airplane Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

)

CORE PROJECTS, INC., )

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. )

)

)

AVIATION SERVICES, INC.,et. al., )

Defendants. )

)

)

CV-F- 05-1118 DLB

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY

CUT-OFF AND TO TAKE

DEPOSITIONS

[Doc 87]

On September 14, 2006, plaintiff Core Projects, Inc. (“Core Projects”) filed a motion

to extend discovery cutoff and permit depositions. Based on the agreement of the parties, the

motion was heard on September 29, 2006, before the undersigned. Keith Lovendosky

appeared for Core Projects. Timothy Buchanan appeared for defendants Aviation Services

Unlimited, Inc. (“ASU”) and Wayne O’Berg (“O’Berg”). Benjamin Hall appeared for

defendants Dove Air, Inc. (“Dove Air”) and Joseph Duncan (“Duncan”). 

BACKGROUND

Core Projects is a California corporation located in Fresno. It purchased a Sabre 60 jet

aircraft (“aircraft”) from Dove Air, a North Carolina corporation, in June of 2003. Core Projects

paid $685,000.00 for the aircraft. Defendant ASU was the name of the facility that conducted predelivery maintenance and repairs to the aircraft. Defendant O'Berg is an officer of ASU. Defendant

Duncan is the Chief Executive Officer of Dove Air.

Case 1:05-cv-01118-DLB Document 101 Filed 10/02/06 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

Core Projects asserts the following claims, or causes of action, against the defendants: 

rescission and restitution against Dove based on its false representations as to the condition of the

aircraft in 2003; fraud as a promise made without intention to perform against Dove and Duncan

based on their misrepresentations as to the condition and quality of the aircraft in 2003; fraudulent

misrepresentation against all defendants based on the affirmations made by defendants in writing and

orally that the aircraft had been properly inspected and repaired prior to delivery in 2003 to Core

Projects; negligent misrepresentation against all defendants based on representations as to the quality

of repairs and maintenance to the aircraft in 2003; breach of written contract against Dove based on

its failure to perform pre-delivery maintenance and repairs upon the aircraft; breach of warranty

against Dove and Duncan based on their representation as to the quality of the aircraft delivered to

Core Projects in 2003; breach of oral contract against all defendants relating to the 2005 repairs that

were supposed to be made to the aircraft by ASU and O'Berg and paid for by Dove and Duncan;

conversion against ASU and O'Berg for failing to return the aircraft to Core Projects in 2005 after

Dove and Duncan failed to make payment for the 2005 repairs. 

Defendant ASU has filed a counterclaim against Core Projects, Dove, and Duncan, stating

that it is entitled to $88,814.90, representing its costs of repairs conducted upon the aircraft in the

summer of 2005, plus storage fees, prejudgment interest and attorneys’ fees. 

Defendants Dove and Duncan have also filed a counterclaim against Core Projects, alleging

that in September 2003, they supplied Core Projects with an alternative aircraft while repair,

maintenance, and other corrective work was being completed on the Sabre 60 aircraft. For supplying

this alternative aircraft, Dove Air and Duncan allege that Core Projects owes them the sum of

$23,819.26.

Core Projects brings this motion for an order extending the discovery cutoff date so as to

permit Core Projects (and defendants, if they desire) to take depositions in this matter. Core Projects

wishes to take the depositions of defendants Duncan and O’Berg who were also designated as party

affiliated experts. Core Projects also wishes to take the depositions of two employees of defendant

ASU, H. Pruitt and B. Butler. Defendant O’Berg and ASU employees Pruitt and Butler reside in

Case 1:05-cv-01118-DLB Document 101 Filed 10/02/06 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

Oklahoma; defendant Joseph Duncan resides in Norther Carolina.

Core Projects contends the parties completed written discovery (production of documents and

interrogatories) by the end of June 2006. On May 31, 2006, Core Projects designated Gary Gilberts

as its retained expert and Dove and Duncan designated Joseph Duncan as their retained expert. On

June 1, 2006 ASU and O’Berg designated Wayne O’Berg as their expert and on June 5, 2006, Core

Projects designated Tim Hawkins, a pilot/mechanic, as a supplemental expert.

On June 21, 2006, Core Projects noticed the depositions of defendants O’Berg and Duncan

for July 6, 2006 and July 7, 2006, respectively and set them to take place in Fresno. See Declaration

of Keith Lovendosky, ¶ 7-8. Plaintiff contends that since these individuals were also designated as

experts, the deposition dates fell within the time requirements of expert witness discovery cut-off

established by the Scheduling Order. 

On June 28, 2006, counsel for defendants ASU and Mr. O’Berg indicated that the dates for

the depositions as scheduled were not convenient and requested that they discuss rescheduling. See

Declaration of Keith Lovendosky, Exhibit “I.” Counsel advised that he would be out of the country

until July 24, 2006 but suggested that the parties should arrange the depositions in his absence. Id. 

Counsel for Dove and Duncan also requested that the depositions be rescheduled due to his

unavailability. See Declaration of Keith Lovendosky, Exhibit “J.”

On June 29, 2006, counsel for O’Berg and ASU advised that Mr. O’Berg had undergone knee

surgery and would be available for depositions after July 11, 2006. See Declaration of Keith

Lovendosky, Exhibit “K.” On July 2, 2006, Mr. Lovendosky sent correspondence to counsel for Mr.

Duncan indicating his belief that there was an understanding that the deposition of Mr. O’Berg

would be reset “in the near future” and stating his hope that Mr. Duncan’s deposition could be set in

July or August. See Declaration of Keith Lovendosky, Exhibit “L.”

Counsel for Core Projects states that it was his “belief that there was an informal agreement

between all counsel in this case that the depositions would eventually be scheduled and completed

prior to the trial date.” Declaration of Keith Lovendosky, ¶ 13. 

Case 1:05-cv-01118-DLB Document 101 Filed 10/02/06 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

Core Projects argues that the depositions were postponed at defendants’ requests and it

rightfully believed that there would be cooperation on the issue of rescheduling. Core Projects

therefore argues it should be entitled to complete the following depositions:

1. Joseph Duncan, in North Carolina;

2. Wayne O’Berg in Oklahoma;

3. Two (2) Aviation Services Unlimited employees, H. Pruitt and B. Butler in

Oklahoma.

Defendants oppose the motion and Core Project’s characterization of the discussions

surrounding the depositions. Defendants argue that Core Projects has failed to show good cause to

amend the scheduling order. Defendants state that while the parties had discussions about taking

expert depositions after the discovery cutoff of July 7, 2006, no such discussions have taken place

since July 2, 2006. Mr. O’Berg’s counsel represents that he told counsel that Mr. O’Berg could be

made available to depositions in Oklahoma any time after July 11, 2006. Defendants argue that

counsel never communicated on the subject until the pre trial conference statement filed on August

25, 2006. Defendants therefore argue that Core Projects has failed to show the requisite diligence to

support amending the scheduling order and allowing numerous out of state depositions.

DISCUSSION

Rule 16(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes the district court to control and

expedite pretrial discovery through a scheduling order. Rule 16(b) states that a schedule shall not be

modified except upon a showing of good cause. In this context, “good cause” has been linked with

the diligence of the party requesting the modification. See Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison

Co. 302 F.3d. 1080, 1087-1088 (9 Cir. 2002); Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604 th

(9th Cir. 1992). In Zivkovic and Johnson, the courts found that good cause did not exist for the

requested modification because the party seeking the modification had not been diligent. 

Carelessness is not a basis for granting relief. Engleson v. Burlington Northern R.R. Co., 972 F.2d

1038, 1043 (9th Cir.1992) (carelessness not a ground for relief under Rule 60(b)); Martella v.

Marine Cooks & Stewards Union, 448 F.2d 729, 730 (9th Cir.1971) (same). “Although the existence

Case 1:05-cv-01118-DLB Document 101 Filed 10/02/06 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 5

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.”

Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir.1992).

Core Projects’ counsel agreed to take the depositions of Mr. O’Berg and Mr. Duncan off

calender in late June 2006. His last correspondence with opposing counsel on this subject was on

July 2, 2006. He then waited until the end of August to request the rescheduling of not only Mr.

O’Berg’s and Mr. Duncan’s depositions, but two (2) additional non-party depositions. There is no

evidence of any communication on the subject from Mr. Lovendosky during the remainder of July or

August 2006. Indeed, there is no mention of the request for depositions in the parties’ August 31,

2006 Joint Pretrial Statement. In the section titled “Further Discovery or Motions”, the parties’ state,

“No law or motion mater is currently scheduled for hearing in this matter.” The first communication

Mr. Lovendensky had with the Court on the subject was at the September 8, 2006 Pretrial

Conference. Mr. Lovendosky was not diligent. His inattention to this case, despite the aggressive

scheduling order agreed upon by the parties, does not demonstrate good cause to modify the

scheduling order to allow out of state depositions less than 30 days before trial. 

CONCLUSION

The Court having read and considered the pleadings submitted in support of and in

opposition to the present motion and having heard and considered the arguments made at the

hearing ORDERS Core Project’s motion to extend the discovery cut-off and to take

depositions is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: October 2, 2006 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01118-DLB Document 101 Filed 10/02/06 Page 5 of 5