Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-02057/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-02057-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1983 Civil Rights

---

1

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

At the request of counsel, on April 10, 2015, the Court held an informal telephonic conference 

related to Plaintiffs’ request to reopen discovery. (Doc. 41) At the hearing, Plaintiffs noted that there is 

a significant amount of time between the close of discovery and the trial date1and noted there is 

discovery Plaintiffs still need to complete. In particular, first, Plaintiffs asserted that Defendant 

Woessner was instructed not to answer a number of deposition questions that asked for his and asserted 

need for answers to these questions. Second, Plaintiffs reported that they had failed to take the 

deposition of a crime lab staff member due to inadvertence.

Defendants did not agree to reopening discovery and noted that non-expert discovery closed on 

March 27, 2015 and experts were due to be disclosed in about two weeks. They claimed that reopening 

fact discovery would necessarily impact their expert’s opinions and all remaining dates in the schedule. 

 

1 Originally, the trial date selected was December 1, 2015. (Doc. 18) Soon thereafter, the Court granted the 

stipulation of counsel to change the trial date to February 2, 2016. (Doc. 20)

R.D.G., et al.,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:13-cv-02057 JLT

ORDER AFTER INFORMAL TELEPHONIC 

CONFERENCE

(Doc. 41)

Case 1:13-cv-02057-JLT Document 43 Filed 04/10/15 Page 1 of 2
2

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

In addition, they reported that while Plaintiffs identified complaints as to the deposition of Woessner 

related to the request to amend the schedule, there were no substantive discussions related to the 

propriety of objections lodged.

The Court observed that in late February, it amended the case schedule to extend the discovery 

deadlines related to experts but no issue was raised at that time about the deadline for non-expert 

discovery. Thus, after discussing the issues, the Court ORDERS:

1. Plaintiffs are authorized to file their motion to amend the case schedule but must do so 

within the current deadlines. If the motion is filed, they SHALL address whether good cause exists for 

the modification sought and whether they acted with diligence in attempting to meet the deadlines 

imposed. The motion SHALL comply with Local Rule 251(c);

2. Plaintiffs are not authorized to file a motion related to the deposition of Officer 

Woessner. There has been insufficient meet and confer efforts to determine whether the dispute may 

be resolved short of filing a motion. Once these efforts are exhausted, a further informal telephonic 

conference with the Court must occur before the Court will authorize the filing of a motion to compel.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 10, 2015 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-02057-JLT Document 43 Filed 04/10/15 Page 2 of 2