Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-00805/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-00805-19/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal - Employment Discrimination

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

PAMELA WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

GYRUS ACMI, LP, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-00805-BLF 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' 

MOTION TO CHANGE TIME TO 

DISCLOSE EXPERTS AND PROVIDE 

REPORTS

[Re: ECF 187]

Now before the Court is Defendants’ Gyrus ACMI, LP and Olympus Corporation of the 

Americas (collectively, “Defendants”) motion to change time to disclose experts and provide 

reports. Mot., ECF 187. For the reasons set forth herein, Defendants’ motion is GRANTED.

Defendants seek to extend expert discovery from November 11, 2016, until December 19, 

2016, to provide their experts sufficient time to prepare their reports. Id. at 1. Defendants intend 

to utilize two experts at trial—an economic damages expert and a psychological expert. Id. at 1. 

Defendants aver that Plaintiff prevented them from conducting the necessary discovery to aid in 

the preparation of these expert reports. Id. Williams opposes Defendants request, claiming that to 

grant Defendants’ motion would cause her prejudice “because Defendant[s’] refused Plaintiff’s 

request to extend discovery time” for her.

1

 Opp’n 1, ECF 194. Williams also argues that 

Defendants “took Plaintiff’s [d]eposition for five consecutive days, which Plaintiff believes was 

an abuse of due process,” and that Defendants’ conduct violated other various discovery orders 

and rules. Id. at 2. The Court declines to address this argument because it is not relevant to the 

applicable standard. Id. at 1. 

 

1

The Court will consider Williams’ opposition despite it being filed after the previously extended 

deadline of 4:00 p.m. on November 17, 2016. See generally Opp’n (filed November 18, 2016).

Case 5:14-cv-00805-BLF Document 198 Filed 11/22/16 Page 1 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Under Rule 16, scheduling orders “may be modified only for good cause and with the 

judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). Pretrial scheduling orders may be modified if the 

dates scheduled “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). The focus 

of the good cause inquiry is “on the moving party’s reasons for seeking modification. If that party 

was not diligent, the inquiry should end.” Id. “[C]entering the good cause analysis on the moving 

party’s diligence prevents parties from profiting from carelessness, unreasonability, or 

gamesmanship, while also not punishing parties for circumstances outside their control.” In re 

Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litig., No. C-07-5944, 2014 WL 4954634, at *2 (N.D. Cal. 

Oct. 1, 2014) (citing Orozco v. Midland Credit Mgmt. Inc., No. 12-cv-02585, 2013 WL 3941318, 

at *3 (E.D. Cal. July 30, 2013)).

Defendants seek to extend the expert disclosure and expert report deadline as to two 

experts, a psychological expert and an economic damages expert. The Court addresses each in 

turn below.

Counsel for Defendants initially contacted Williams regarding a mental exam2on 

September 29, 2016—one and a half-months before the close of expert discovery. Damron-Hsiao 

Decl. ¶ 4, ECF 187-1; Ex. A to Mot., ECF 187-1. Williams failed to respond. Damron-Hsiao 

Decl. ¶ 4. Defendants sent Williams a second letter regarding a mental exam on October 7, 2016. 

Id. ¶ 5; Ex. B to Mot., ECF 187-1. Williams did not respond to this letter either. On October 14, 

2016, the parties scheduled an in-person meet and confer. The parties intended to discuss 

Plaintiff’s mental exam, but Plaintiff did not attend the meeting. Damron-Hsiao Decl. ¶ 6. After 

the October 24, 2016, case management conference, the Court ordered the parties to meet and 

confer regarding the mental exam while in the courtroom. Mot. 3. Defendants again informed 

Plaintiff of the need to complete the exam well before the November 11, 2016, expert disclosure 

and expert report deadline, and Plaintiff assured Defendants that she would provide them with two 

 

2 Williams’ mental condition is “in controversy,” because she has stated a claim for intentional 

infliction of emotional distress. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 35(a), (b); Lytel v. Simpson, No. C 05-1937, 

2006 WL 2053516 (N.D. Cal. July 21, 2006).

Case 5:14-cv-00805-BLF Document 198 Filed 11/22/16 Page 2 of 3
3

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

Northern District of California

suitable dates. Damron-Hsiao Decl. ¶ 7. Williams did not provide Defendants’ counsel with any 

such dates. Id. Defendants then sent Williams another letter, highlighting her failure to provide 

suitable dates as agreed. Ex. C to Mot., ECF 187-1. Williams responded that she was available on 

November 11, 2016, the day of the expert disclosure and expert report cut-off. Ex. D to Mot., 

ECF 187-1. 

Defendants also engaged an economic expert to assess Williams’ claim for lost wages and 

future economic damages. Mot. 4. Defendants’ expert needs to review Plaintiff’s deposition 

testimony in order to opine on her alleged economic damages. Damron-Hsiao Decl. ¶¶ 11–12. 

However, as detailed in this Court’s order regarding monetary sanctions, Plaintiff refused to sit for 

her deposition until November 3, 2016, after she was ordered to do so by the Court. See ECF 197. 

Additionally, Defendants claim that Plaintiff has not responded to Defendants’ discovery requests 

addressing her economic damages. Damron-Hsiao Decl. ¶ 12. Williams does not dispute this 

assertion, and Defendants have filed multiple Discovery Dispute Joint Reports with Magistrate 

Judge Lloyd related to these requests. Id. ¶ 13. These disputes are still pending before Judge 

Lloyd. Id. 

Plaintiff offers no excuse for her failure to cooperate, and claims only that she will be 

prejudiced if the Court grants Defendants’ motion “because Defendant[s’] refused Plaintiff’s 

request to extend discovery time.”3 Opp’n 1. This is not what is meant by prejudice, and there is 

no indication that the trial schedule will be impacted by granting this motion. 

On this record, the Court finds that Defendants were diligent in attempting to conduct the 

discovery necessary to the procurement of these expert reports, and GRANTS Defendants’ 

motion. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 22, 2016

 ______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

 

3 At a hearing on another motion, the parties informed the Court that they had scheduled Williams’ 

mental exam for December 7, 2016. 

Case 5:14-cv-00805-BLF Document 198 Filed 11/22/16 Page 3 of 3