Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06527/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06527-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Wrongful Death

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROCIO ADAME ARAUJO CASE NO. CV-F-02-6527 REC LJO

DE AGUILAR, et al. (Consolidated cases)

Plaintiffs, ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE

APPLICATION FOR ORDER TO REOPEN

vs. NONEXPERT DISCOVERY

(Docs. 148, 149.)

NATIONAL RAILROAD

PASSENGER CORPORATION, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CLAUDIA MUNOZ, et al.,

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER

CORPORATION, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

ROSA ROMERO, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

NATIONAL RAILROAD

PASSENGER CORPORATION, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Case 1:02-cv-06527-LJO-GSA Document 150 Filed 08/10/05 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

The plaintiffs seeking the ex parte relief are Rocio Adame Alfaro, Lizabeth Aguilar Adame, Claudia

Munoz, Luis Mario Munoz, Isais Sarabia, Paola Diaz Sarabia, Juan Jimenez, Maria Guadalupe Jimenez Diaz, Pedro Jimenez

Diaz, Rocio Jimenez Diaz, and Valeria Itzel Jimenez Diaz. Counsel for these defendants indicates the motion “is made on

behalf of all plaintiffs in the present action.” 

2

INTRODUCTION

In this railroad crossing collision action, plaintiffs1 seek to reopen discovery to depose two

witnesses and to obtain documents regarding maintenance and repair of railroad crossing equipment and

train at issue. For the reasons discussed below, this Court DENIES plaintiffs’ ex parte application to

reopen discovery for the requested depositions and document production.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs’ Claims And This Court’s Scheduling Order

On December 12, 2001, seven farm laborers were killed when their van collided with a defendant

National Railroad Passenger Corporation (“Amtrack”) train at a railroad crossing near Shafter,

California. The plaintiffs are decedents’ relatives and heirs and pursue negligence and wrongful death

claims against several defendants to allege loss of decedents’ support. Plaintiffs contend that Burlington

Northern Sante Fe Corporation (“BNSF”) is responsible to maintain and control the railroad tracks and

crossing where decedent’s van collided with the subject Amtrack train 7141-12. Plaintiffs believe

crossing traffic control flashers “had a history of not always functioning at this crossing and at the time

of the accident had malfunctioned and were not operating.” Plaintiffs characterize as “principle issues”

whether the warning systems at the crossing and on Amtrack train 7141-12 “were properly functioning

at the time of the accident.” 

This Court consolidated the several actions of the numerous plaintiffs into the above-captioned

action. This Court issued its September 30, 2004 order to set discovery, motion and trial dates. As to

nonexpert discovery, the order states: “All nonexpert discovery and related discovery motions (including

motions to compel) shall be completed or heard no later than June 10, 2005.” (Bold in original.) The

order further set a July 15, 2005 expert discovery cutoff, a September 15, 2005 pretrial conference and

a November 1, 2005 trial.

Plaintiff’s Late Discovery

On April 28, 2005, plaintiff Rocio Adame Araujo served a notice on BNSF for its F.R.Civ.P.

Case 1:02-cv-06527-LJO-GSA Document 150 Filed 08/10/05 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

2

Plaintiffs fail to explain why Mr. Greenlee was deposed after the June 10, 2005 nonexpert discovery cutoff.

3

Plaintiffs fail to explain why Mr. Ward was deposed after the June 10, 2005 nonexpert discovery cutoff.

3

30(a)(1) person most knowledgeable regarding the maintenance and repair of the traffic control device

at the crossing where the collision occurred. The deposition notice sought production of all documents

regarding maintenance and report of the traffic control device. In response, BNSF produced its

employee David Greenlee (“Mr. Greenlee”), who was deposed on June 27, 2005.2 Plaintiffs are critical

of BNSF’s selection of Mr. Greenlee as person most knowledgeable and claim:

1. Mr. Greenlee is not the person most knowledgeable regarding the traffic control device

and key information downloaded from the control box at the railroad crossing; 

2. Mr. Greenlee created doubt whether “BNSF followed proper procedures with regard to

opening the control box following the accident”;

3. Mr. Greenlee was not trained to interpret key information that was downloaded on the

control box after the collision; and

4. Kenneth Walter (“Mr. Walter”), BNSF supervisor of signals, “is the person most

knowledgeable as to critical data that was recorded and downloaded from the control box

located at the railroad crossing,” and Mr. Walter’s deposition can cure Mr. Greenlee’s

inconsistencies.

Walter Ward (“Mr. Ward”) was the engineer of Amtrack train 7141-12 at the time of the

collision and was deposed on June 30, 2005.3 Patricia Miller (“Ms. Miller”) was the second engineer

at the time of the collision. Plaintiffs attribute Mr. Ward as testifying that:

1. When Mr. Ward was on the ground, ditch lights on the train were not lit although their

switch was on and he so indicated on a work order; and

2. Mr. Ward “did not mention the malfunction in the accident report and the accident report

states that he believed the ditch lights were on.” 

Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Application

On August 8, 2005, plaintiffs filed their ex parte application to reopen discovery to depose Mr.

Walter and Ms. Miller and to seek production of “all written, digital or electronic records of all repairs

Case 1:02-cv-06527-LJO-GSA Document 150 Filed 08/10/05 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

4

made to and at the railroad signal control box at the location of the accident” and “all work orders for

Amtrak train #7141-12.” Plaintiffs contend that:

1. Mr. Walter’s deposition is required to resolve Mr. Greenlee’s inconsistencies and to

provide requested person most knowledgeable information;

2. Mr. Walter’s deposition “would potentially provide critical information with regard to

the control box and whether the warning device system at the railroad crossing was

functioning properly”;

3. Since Mr. Walter “made electronic changes to the data at the control box” at the crossing,

plaintiffs require discovery of all railroad repair orders;

4. Ms. Miller’s deposition “may provide valuable information regarding the

condition of the ditch lights following the accident”;

5. Ms. Miller’s testimony and the work order documents may reconcile Mr. Ward’s

testimony;

6. Based on Mr. Ward’s testimony regarding the train’s ditch lights, plaintiffs need

production of all work orders regarding the train; and 

7. The requested discovery could be “potentially effective” to plaintiffs’ case.

According to plaintiffs, defense counsel at the conclusion of Mr. Greenlee’s June 27, 2005

deposition and Mr. Ward’s June 30, 2005 deposition declined plaintiffs’ requests to reopen discovery.

DISCUSSION

Reopening Discovery

Pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 16(b)(2) and (3), district courts must enter scheduling orders to establish

deadlines for, among other things, “to file motions” and “to complete discovery.” Scheduling orders

may also include “the date or dates for conferences before trial, a final pretrial conference, and trial.”

F.R.Civ.P. 16(b)(4). “A schedule shall not be modified except upon a showing of good cause and by

leave of the district judge or, when authorized by local rule, by a magistrate judge.” F.R.Civ.P. 16(b).

The scheduling order “shall control the subsequent course of the action unless modified by a subsequent

order.” F.R.Civ.P. 16(e).

Scheduling orders “are the heart of case management,” Koplve v. Ford Motor Co., 795 F.2d 15,

Case 1:02-cv-06527-LJO-GSA Document 150 Filed 08/10/05 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

4

In their papers, plaintiffs fail to mention the June 10, 2005 nonexpert discovery cutoff and merely refer to

the November 1, 2005 trial.

5

18 (3rd Cir. 1986), and are intended to alleviate case management problems. Johnson v. Mammoth

Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 610 (9th Cir. 1992). A “scheduling conference order is not a frivolous

piece of paper, idly entered, which can be cavalierly disregarded without peril.” Johnson, 975 F.2d at

610. In Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals explained:

. . . Rule 16(b)’s “good cause” standard primarily concerns the diligence of the party

seeking the amendment. The district court may modify the pretrial schedule “if it cannot

reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.” Fed.R.Civ.P.

16 advisory committee’s notes (1983 amendment) . . . Moreover, carelessness is not

compatible with a finding of diligence and offers no reason for a grant of relief. . . . [T]he

focus of the inquiry is upon the moving party’s reasons for seeking modification. . . . If

that party was not diligent, the inquiry should end.

Parties must “diligently attempt to adhere to that schedule throughout the subsequent course of

the litigation.” Jackson v. Laureate, Inc., 186 F.R.D. 605, 607 (E.D. Cal. 1999); see Marcum v. Zimmer,

163 F.R.D. 250, 254 (S.D. W.Va. 1995). In addressing the diligence requirement, this Court has noted:

Accordingly, to demonstrate diligence under Rule 16's “good cause” standard, the

movant may be required to show the following: (1) that she was diligent in assisting the

Court in creating a workable Rule 16 order, see In re San Juan Dupont, 111 F.3d at 228;

(2) that her noncompliance with a Rule 16 deadline occurred or will occur,

notwithstanding her diligent efforts to comply, because of the development of matters

which could not have been reasonably foreseen or anticipated at the time of the Rule 16

scheduling conference, see Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609; and (3) that she was diligent in

seeking amendment of the Rule 16 order, once it became apparent that she could not

comply with the order, see Eckert Cold Storage, 943 F.Supp. at 1233.

Jackson, 186 F.R.D. at 608.

In the case at hand, plaintiffs with their ex parte application unilaterally seek to reopen nonexpert

discovery which by this Court’s order has been closed for nearly two months.4 Plaintiffs show neither

defendants nor this Court the courtesy to comply with Local Rule 6-142(e) to seek an order to shorten

time to permit defendants to respond to plaintiffs’ ex parte application. Plaintiffs’ procedural miscues

and failure to properly seek their requested relief add to the reasons discussed below to deny them to

reopen discovery.

Plaintiffs meekly claim they have good cause to reopen discovery. Plaintiffs show no good cause

to reopen discovery which they characterize as “potentially effective” to their case. Plaintiffs provide

no meaningful information which may be unearthed from reopening discovery.

Case 1:02-cv-06527-LJO-GSA Document 150 Filed 08/10/05 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

More troubling is plaintiffs’ lack of diligence. For unexplained reasons, the depositions giving

rise for the need to reopen discovery were taken after this Court’s ordered discovery cutoff. To reopen

discovery, plaintiffs rely on discovery conducted after the nonexpert discovery cutoff. Plaintiffs delayed

deposing key witnesses perhaps on the gamble that settlement would avoid the need for the depositions.

Plaintiffs characterize as “principle issues” the proper operation of warning systems to demonstrate the

need to conduct earlier discovery on these key matters. Plaintiffs show no diligence to reopen discovery,

especially given the two-month expiration of the nonexpert discovery cutoff. 

Whatever its reason, plaintiffs’ delay is akin to carelessness to eviscerate necessary diligence for

their requested relief. Moreover, plaintiffs participated in a September 30, 2004 scheduling conference

to set the discovery dates. Plaintiffs offer no evidence that despite diligence, of which none is shown,

they could not have reasonably foreseen an inability to complete discovery which they now seek.

Equally damaging to plaintiffs is their delay to seek relief five weeks after defense counsel declined to

reopen discovery. Reopening discovery would render the scheduling order frivolous.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the reasons discussed above, this Court DENIES plaintiffs’ ex parte application to reopen

discovery.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 9, 2005 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

66h44d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:02-cv-06527-LJO-GSA Document 150 Filed 08/10/05 Page 6 of 6