Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02591/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02591-0/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

AARHUS MANSOURIAN; LAUREN 

MANCUSO; NANCY NIEN-LI

CHIANG; CHRISTINE WING-SI NG;

and all those similarly

situated,

NO. CIV. S-03-2591 FCD/PAN

Plaintiffs,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

at DAVIS; LAWRENCE “LARRY”

VANDERHOEF; GREG WARZECKA;

PAM GILL-FISHER; ROBERT

FRANKS; and LAWRENCE SWANSON,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 2:03-cv-02591-KJM-EFB Document 48 Filed 06/14/05 Page 1 of 6
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. 

E.D. Cal. L.R. 78-230(h).

2 The pretrial scheduling order in this case has been

amended by the court and/or the parties, by stipulation, several

times, most recently by stipulation and order, filed February 25,

2005. That order set the dates as follows: (1) initial

disclosure of experts – June 1, 2005; (2) disclosure of rebuttal

experts – June 24, 2005; (3) completion of discovery – July 22,

2005; (4) dispositive motion cut-off – September 9, 2005; (5)

final pretrial conference – November 18, 2005; and (6) trial –

January 24, 2006.

3 The court notes that defendants propose slightly

different dates for the extension of these deadlines than

plaintiffs. 

4 As set forth above, per the February 25, 2005

stipulation and order, expert disclosures were due on June 1,

2005. On that date, the court granted plaintiffs’ ex parte

application for an order shortening time to hear the instant

motion, thus relieving plaintiffs, at least temporarily, of their

obligation to file their expert disclosures. (Minute Order,

2

This matter is before the court on plaintiffs’ motion to

modify the pretrial scheduling order, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.

16(b).1 Plaintiffs seek to extend the current dates2 for

disclosure of experts, close of discovery, dispositive motions,

the final pretrial conference, and trial by approximately two

months. Defendants partially oppose the motion. They agree to

an extension of the dates for close of discovery, dispositive

motions, and the final pretrial conference,3 but oppose any

extension of the dates for disclosure of experts and trial. 

Accordingly, the court only discusses herein whether plaintiffs

have demonstrated “good cause” for an extension of the dates for

disclosure of experts and trial.

In that regard, plaintiffs seek modification of the

scheduling order to continue the disclosure date for experts from

June 1, 20054 to August 1, 2005 (with disclosure of rebuttal

Case 2:03-cv-02591-KJM-EFB Document 48 Filed 06/14/05 Page 2 of 6
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

filed June 1, 2005.) Defendants filed their expert disclosures

that same day.

3

experts due September 1, 2005, rather than June 24, 2005), and to

continue trial from January 24, 2006 to an available date in

February 2006. 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.

Here, plaintiffs first requested that defendants stipulate

to the instant extension of dates on May 16, 2005. They

continued to request the extension during a week of depositions,

on May 16-24, 2005, and thereafter by phone; however, lead

counsel for defendants would not respond. When no response was

received, plaintiffs were forced to file their ex parte

application to shorten time to hear this motion. 

Defendants maintain that plaintiffs were not diligent in

seeking relief as they filed their motion on the expert

disclosure deadline. Nevertheless, based on the parties’ prior

agreements with respect to extensions of the scheduling order,

Case 2:03-cv-02591-KJM-EFB Document 48 Filed 06/14/05 Page 3 of 6
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 However, as reflected in the schedule below, the

court’s calendar could not accommodate a February 2006 trial

date.

4

plaintiffs reasonably continued to try to obtain defendants’

stipulation, believing that a joint resolution could be reached

as it had two times before. (Stip. & Order, filed Oct. 26, 2004

and Feb. 25, 2005.) 

Moreover, during this same period of time, the parties were

engaged in extensive discovery. Defendants were well aware of

plaintiffs’ objection to defendants’ recent, delayed and,

according to plaintiffs, deficient document production. 

Plaintiffs base their request for an extension of time to

disclose experts, largely on the basis of the need to obtain

necessary discovery, some of which defendants agree must be

conducted. While the court is not in a position to adjudge the

merits of plaintiffs’ allegations regarding the purported

deficiencies in defendants’ recent discovery responses,

plaintiffs have demonstrated herein that certain, further

discovery is necessary and would impact the type of experts

plaintiffs disclose. As such, plaintiffs have demonstrated “good

cause” for the extension.

The court also notes that, importantly, the requested

extension is limited. Indeed, plaintiffs request only a two

month extension of the deadline for disclosure of experts and

their proposed schedule would result in just a one month

continuation of the trial date.5 Defendants assert that they

would be prejudiced by the extension because they have already

disclosed their experts, and plaintiffs would have the benefit,

Case 2:03-cv-02591-KJM-EFB Document 48 Filed 06/14/05 Page 4 of 6
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

over the next two months, of that information. Any prejudice

resulting from this fact is minimal. Defendants will have the

opportunity to amend their disclosure, in full or in part, prior

to the new deadline. Additionally, defendants are not prejudiced

by virtue of this brief extension of the relevant dates. This is

a complicated case which has already involved extensive discovery

(some 50 depositions have been taken and over 50,000 documents

produced). Defendants admit that still further discovery is

needed. Now, both parties will be given additional time to

complete and obtain necessary discovery and to assess that

discovery for purposes of obtaining relevant experts. A short

continuation of the trial date, some seven months in advance, is

certainly are not prejudicial to any party. 

Accordingly, the court HEREBY AMENDS the pretrial scheduling

order in this case, originally filed June 9, 2004, and

subsequently amended on June 30, 2004, October 27, 2004, and

February 25, 2005, as follows:

Initial Disclosure of Experts: August 1, 2005

Disclosure of Rebuttal Experts: September 1, 2005

Discovery Cut-Off: October 28, 2005

Last Date for Hearing on a

Dispositive Motion: January 13, 2006

Final Pretrial Conference: March 17, 2006 at 

1:30 p.m.

///

///

///

///

Case 2:03-cv-02591-KJM-EFB Document 48 Filed 06/14/05 Page 5 of 6
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

Trial: May 2, 2006 at 

9:00 a.m.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 14, 2005

/s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. 

FRANK C. DAMRELL, Jr.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:03-cv-02591-KJM-EFB Document 48 Filed 06/14/05 Page 6 of 6