Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01126/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01126-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEREMY STEPHENS, et. al., )

)

)

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. )

)

STANISLAUS COUNTY SHERIFF, )

 et al., )

)

)

)

Defendants. )

 )

1:05cv1126 AWI DLB

ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO

MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER

(Document 27)

On September 13, 2006, Plaintiffs Jeremy Stephens, a minor, by and through his guardian

Dorothy Shockley; Dorothy Shockley; Tisha Pleake; Jacob Stephens and Timothy Stephens, Jr.

(Collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed the instant motion to amend the scheduling order. The motion

was heard on October 27, 2006, before the Honorable Dennis L. Beck, United States Magistrate

Judge. John Bell appeared on behalf of Plaintiffs. Dan Farrar appeared on behalf of Defendant

Stanislaus County Sheriff (“Defendant”).

BACKGROUND

Decedent, Timothy Stephens, was arrested by the Modesto Police on September 24, 2004,

for being drunk in public. He was transported to the Stanislaus County Jail where he was placed

in a holding cell, to be released when sober. Stephens was assaulted by another inmate and died

on September 30, 2004, of his injuries sustained in the fight.

Case 1:05-cv-01126-DLB Document 31 Filed 10/31/06 Page 1 of 4
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

Plaintiffs filed this action on September 1, 2005 against the Stanislaus County Sheriff and

Deputy Sheriff. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants violated the decedent's Eighth Amendment

right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. Plaintiffs assert that defendants failed to

afford timely medical treatment to decedent and failed to transport him immediately to the

hospital. Plaintiffs also contend the defendants were negligent in placing the decedent in a

general population cell on a ''release when sober" charge. The decedent allegedly died as a result

of this negligence, causing Plaintiffs’ harm. Plaintiffs seek monetary damages for the wrongful

death of Timothy Stephens.

The Court issued a Scheduling Order on January 30, 2006 providing the following

deadlines:

Discovery Deadlines:

Initial Disclosures: February 15, 2006

Expert Disclosure: June 1, 2006

Non Expert: August 1, 2006

Expert: October 2, 2006

Non-Dispositive Motion Deadlines:

Filing: October 13, 2006

Hearing: November 10, 2006

Dispositive Motion Deadlines: 

Filing: December 15, 2006

Hearing: January 19, 2007

Pre-Trial Conference:

March 2, 2007 at 1:30 p.m. 

Courtroom 9

Trial: April 17, 2007 at 9:00 a.m. 

Courtroom 9

Plaintiffs now seek to modify this schedule to take the deposition of two deputies and

other personnel involved in handling decedents booking and supervision of the jail. Plaintiff

would also like to disclose their liability expert. Neither party has disclosed experts at this point. 

Plaintiff contends that, “through inadvertence and human error,” the assigned paralegal

failed to properly calendar the deadlines in the software program. The oversight was discovered

only when defense counsel refused to permit depositions.

Case 1:05-cv-01126-DLB Document 31 Filed 10/31/06 Page 2 of 4
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

Plaintiffs argue they should be able to designate experts as the sanction of not allowing

their expert would be drastic and unjustified considering the harmless nature of the failure to

comply with the scheduling order. Plaintiffs argue there is no evidence of bad faith and

permitting their experts to testify would not disrupt the trial or prejudice defendant. 

Defendant opposes the motion and argues that Plaintiffs have consistently shown a lack

of diligence in all aspects of this case. Defendant points out that it was Plaintiffs who proposed

the schedule they now wish to change. Defendant states that Plaintiffs have failed to serve initial

disclosures and have failed to respond in a timely manner to discovery. Counsel for Defendant

states that he had discussion with Plaintiffs’ counsel regarding depositions in May but he heard

nothing further from Plaintiffs until mid-August when counsel asked about deposing various

employees. Counsel first learned that Plaintiffs wished to designate an expert at the August 29,

2006 depositions of Plaintiffs. Defendant maintains that Plaintiffs have failed to show good

cause to modify the scheduling order. 

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 th

Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604 (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 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).

Case 1:05-cv-01126-DLB Document 31 Filed 10/31/06 Page 3 of 4
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

Plaintiffs counsel apparently contemplated taking depositions in May 2006, but failed to

follow through with setting the depositions or even request an extension of the cut-off until midAugust 2006, after the expiration. While counsel’s inattention to this case does not demonstrate

good cause to modify the scheduling order, the Court is bound by the overarching principal that

cases should be heard on their merits if possible, especially where it is possible to balance any

prejudice resulting from counsel’s lack of diligence.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion is HEREBY GRANTED in part. The Scheduling Order

issues January 30, 2006 is HEREBY MODIFIED, as follows:

1. Plaintiffs are granted until January 30, 2007 in which to take no more than 3

depositions. The depositions shall take place in Stanislaus County;

2. Plaintiffs shall designate their expert witness pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 26(a)(2), including providing a written report, on or before November

10, 2006;

3. The deposition of Plaintiffs’ expert witness shall take place at Defendant’s

counsel’s office at Plaintiffs’ expense;

4. Defendant may designate a rebuttal expert witness, whose deposition shall take

place prior to January 30, 2007. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: October 31, 2006 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01126-DLB Document 31 Filed 10/31/06 Page 4 of 4