Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00726/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00726-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 362
Nature of Suit: Medical Malpractice
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Medical Malpractice

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Bickler, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Senior Lifestyle Corp., 

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-09-00726-PHX-DGC

ORDER

Defendant has filed a motion to extend the disclosure deadline in this case. Dkt. #92.

Plaintiffs have filed a response. Dkt #97. Defendant seeks an expedited decision, and asks

the Court to extend the fact and expert discovery deadlines by approximately 60 days. For

the reasons set forth below, the Court will deny the motion. 

At a case management conference held on June 18, 2009 pursuant to Rule 16 of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court established a firm schedule for this litigation.

The Court explained at the conference that it would not be inclined to grant extensions of the

schedule. The Case Management Order entered after the conference contained the following

warning:

The Deadlines Are Real. The parties are advised that the Court intends

to enforce the deadlines set forth in this Order, and should plan their

litigation activities accordingly.

Dkt. #22, ¶10. The Case Management Order established fact and expert deposition deadlines

of December 18 and November 16, 2009, respectively. 

Case 2:09-cv-00726-DGC Document 98 Filed 01/28/10 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 -

The Court has reviewed its Livenote transcript of the case management conference.

Plaintiffs counsel sought a 90-day discovery period due to the age and infirmity of their

clients. Defense counsel stated that such a schedule was “ambitious,” and sought additional

time. The Court agreed that 90 days was too short, and set a fact discovery deadline six

months later. As noted, however, the Court cautioned the parties at the hearing and in its

subsequent order that it would hold them to the schedule.

The parties subsequently sought an extension of these deadlines. Dkt. #51. The Court

granted the extensions, somewhat reluctantly, and extended the fact and expert deposition

deadlines to January 31 and February 15, 2010, respectively. Dkt. #59. The Court warned

the parties that it “will not grant additional extensions absent truly extraordinary

circumstances.” Id. ¶7 (emphasis in original). With these extensions, the parties have been

afforded more than seven months to complete fact discovery and eight months to complete

expert discovery. Moreover, these extended deadlines fall approximately one year after the

case was filed on February 19, 2009. See Dkt. #1-2 at 2.

Rule 16 requires district judges to enter case management schedules and provides that

such schedules “may be modified only for good cause[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); see

Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 608 (9th Cir. 1992). “Good cause”

exists when a deadline “cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking

the extension.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 Advisory Comm.’s Notes (1983 Am.). Thus, “Rule

16(b)’s ‘good cause’ standard primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the

amendment.” Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. 

Defendant bases its request for another two months of discovery on several factors:

the parties chose to engage in a mediation and therefore did not start discovery until after

August, Plaintiffs have recently disclosed an additional treating physician and there is not

time to depose him, and Defendant has had difficulty scheduling depositions of Plaintiffs’

various treating physicians. Defendant also claims that Plaintiffs’ counsel have been

uncooperative in scheduling discovery, although the parties’ correspondence suggests

otherwise. See Dkt. #97, Exhibits. 

Case 2:09-cv-00726-DGC Document 98 Filed 01/28/10 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 -

The Court concludes that Defendant has not shown good cause for an extension of the

discovery deadlines. This case was filed in February of 2009 and a six-month discovery

schedule was established in June of 2009 with the warning that it would be enforced.

Despite this schedule and the Court’s warning, the parties did not start depositions until

October. Dkt. #92 at 7. The parties’ memoranda and attachments also reveal that expert

depositions were largely postponed until this month, resulting, predictably, in scheduling

problems. 

Plaintiffs were required to disclose all experts and the identities of all treating

physicians by October 30, 2009. See Dkt. ##17 ¶5(e), 59 ¶1. Defendant has thus had almost

three months to complete their depositions. Postponement of that task has led to the current

scheduling problems, but Defendant has not shown that the depositions could not have been

completed within the Court’s schedule through reasonable diligence. Nor do the other issues

raised by Defendant make such a showing. The parties’ decision to stop discovery while a

mediation was held was made with full knowledge of the Court’s schedule and the Court’s

warning, and without any request to adjust the schedule. Defendant complains that Plaintiffs

only recently disclosed another treating physician, but the deadline for identifying such

physicians was October 30, 2009. See Dkt. ##17 ¶5(e), 59 ¶1. As a general rule, the Court

will not allow parties to call witnesses disclosed after the Court’s deadline. 

In short, Defendant has not shown that discovery in this case could not have been

completed within the extended schedule through reasonable diligence. Defendant therefore

has not shown “good cause” for an extension as required by Rule 16(b)(4).

Moreover, the Court stated in its order of November 11, 2009, that further extensions

would not be granted absent truly extraordinary circumstances. Dkt. #50 ¶7. Defendant has

not shown that truly extraordinary circumstances prevented it from complying with the

Court’s schedule.

“In these days of heavy caseloads, trial courts . . . set schedules and establish

deadlines to foster the efficient treatment and resolution of cases.” Wong v. Regents of the

Univ. of Cal., 410 F.3d 1052, 1060 (9th Cir. 2005). “Parties must understand that they will

Case 2:09-cv-00726-DGC Document 98 Filed 01/28/10 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 -

pay a price for failure to comply strictly with scheduling and other orders[.]” Id. “As the

torrent of civil and criminal cases unleashed in recent years has threatened to inundate the

federal courts, deliverance has been sought in the use of calendar management techniques.

Rule 16 is an important component of those techniques.” Johnson, 975 F.2d at 611. 

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s motion for expedited consideration (Dkt. #92) is

granted and Defendant’s motion to extend deadlines (Dkt. #92) is denied.

DATED this 28th day of January, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-00726-DGC Document 98 Filed 01/28/10 Page 4 of 4