Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00620/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00620-74/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 42:1981 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

SHELLY J. IOANE,

Plaintiff,

v.

JEAN NOLL,

1

Defendant.

Case No. 1:07-cv-00620-AWI-EPG

ORDER GRANTING ADDITIONAL 

EXPERT DISCOVERY AND SETTING 

SCHEDULE

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT 

TO CORRECT DOCKET TO CORRECTLY 

REFLECT THE SPELLING OF 

DEFENDANT JEAN NOLL’S LAST NAME

I. BACKGROUND

This case commenced on April 24, 2007, and proceeded on the second amended complaint, 

filed on October 10, 2008 (ECF No. 64). The parties are familiar with the underlying facts and the 

Court will not repeat them here. 

In February 2016, Defendant Jean Noll filed a motion for summary judgment on grounds 

of qualified immunity with respect to Plaintiff Shelly Ioane’s claim for invasion of bodily privacy. 

The motion was denied and Defendant Noll appealed. While the qualified immunity issue was on 

appeal, the remainder of the case went to trial, with a verdict rendered in favor of the remaining 

defendants and against the remaining plaintiffs.2

 

1 The docket and initial complaint incorrectly spells the last name of Defendant Jean Noll as “Nole.” The Court will 

direct the Clerk of the Court to change the docket to reflect the correct spelling of Defendant Noll’s name. 

2 Plaintiff Shelly Ioane’s remaining claims were dismissed prior to trial.

Case 1:07-cv-00620-AWI-EPG Document 507 Filed 02/18/20 Page 1 of 5
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 Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of qualified immunity in an amended opinion and 

order entered on September 19, 2019 (ECF No. 497), and the Ninth Circuit issued its mandate on 

November 5, 2019 (ECF No. 500). The case is now back before this Court.

The only remaining parties before the Court are Plaintiff Shelly Ioane and Defendant Jean 

Noll, and the only remaining claim is Plaintiff Shelly Ioane’s claim against Defendant Jean Noll 

for invasion of bodily privacy. The Court will therefore refer to Shelley Ioane as “Plaintiff” and 

will refer to Jean Noll as “Defendant.”

On November 25, 2019, Plaintiff and Defendant submitted a joint status report regarding a 

schedule to move the remainder of this case forward to a jury trial (ECF No. 502). The status 

report set forth a proposed schedule and raised several discovery issues. On January 8, 2020, the 

Court held a status conference to discuss the proposed schedule and the issues raised in the 

parties’ joint status report. During the status conference and in a minute order following the 

conference, the Court directed the parties to (1) proceed with limited additional fact discovery; and 

(2) serve on the opposing party, by January 27, 2020, all written discovery that they had provided 

to the opposing parties earlier in this case, along with any supplementation to that written 

discovery. The Court seat a deadline of April 17, 2020 for additional fact discovery (ECF No. 

505). The Court took under advisement the issue of whether expert discovery should be reopened. 

In this order, the Court sets the schedule for proceeding to trial and grants Plaintiff’s request to 

reopen expert discovery.

II. CORRECTION OF SPELLING OF DEFENDANT JEAN NOLL’S NAME

As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that the initial complaint, and the docket 

incorrectly spells the last name of Defendant Jean Noll as “Nole.” The Court DIRECTS the clerk 

of the Court to correct the docket to reflect the correct spelling of Defendant Jean Noll’s last name

III. EXPERT DISCOVERY

Plaintiff anticipates calling three non-retained experts who participated in her medical 

treatment since 2006—Roger Chamberlain; Manolito Castillo, MD; and Muhammed Shabbir, 

MD. These expert witnesses were previously disclosed by Plaintiff’s husband, Michael Ioane, a 

co-plaintiff who proceeded to trial (ECF No. 314). Plaintiff also seeks to retain an additional 

Case 1:07-cv-00620-AWI-EPG Document 507 Filed 02/18/20 Page 2 of 5
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

expert on women’s trauma and post-traumatic stress. Plaintiff seeks to reopen expert discovery to 

allow the appropriate expert disclosures.

Discovery, including expert discovery, has been closed for several years. Thus, Plaintiff 

must show good cause for reopening discovery. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4) (“A schedule may be 

modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent); Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, 

Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 608 (9th Cir. 1992) (District courts will modify dates set forth in a scheduling 

order only upon a showing of good cause); Sheridan v. Reinke, 611 Fed. Appx. 381, 384 (9th Cir. 

2015) (applying Johnson “good cause” requirement to motions to reopen discovery); see also 

Hunt v. County of Orange, 672 F.3d 606, 616 (9th Cir. 2012) (“District courts have ‘broad 

discretion to manage discovery and to control the course of litigation under Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 16.’” (citation omitted)).

The “good cause” standard primarily considers the diligence of the moving party, and a 

court should modify the scheduling order to reopen discovery only if the deadline could not 

“reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking” to reopen. Johnson, 975 F.2d at 

609. In determining whether good cause exists to reopen discovery, courts may consider a variety 

of factors, such as: 

(1) whether trial is imminent, (2) whether the request is opposed, (3) whether the nonmoving party would be prejudiced, (4) whether the moving party was diligent in obtaining 

discovery within the guidelines established by the court, (5) the foreseeability of the need 

for additional discovery in light of the time allowed for discovery by the district court, and 

(6) the likelihood that the discovery will lead to relevant evidence.

U.S. ex rel. Schumer v. Hughes Aircraft Co., 63 F.3d 1512, 1526 (9th Cir. 1995), vacated on other 

grounds, 520 U.S. 939 (1997).

As to the first factor, whether trial is imminent, the Court is setting a trial in this order, and 

thus the trial is not imminent, and the trial date can be set based on whether expert discovery will 

be reopened.

As to the second and third factors, whether the request is opposed and whether the nonmoving party would be prejudiced, Defendant both opposes the request to reopen and asserts that 

she will be prejudiced if the Court grants the request. Defendant contends that the three nonretained experts, although designated as an expert by Plaintiff, never produced an expert report 

Case 1:07-cv-00620-AWI-EPG Document 507 Filed 02/18/20 Page 3 of 5
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

and should not now qualify as experts. Defendant also relies on a statement made in a motion in 

limine by Plaintiff and her husband on July 28, 2016, that they are not claiming current damages 

but are claiming “injuries from the search in 2006 until late 2007 to early 2008.” (See ECF No. 

411.) Defendant argues that Plaintiff should not now be able to insert new damages claims and 

theories and new experts into the case.

After considering Defendant’s arguments, and the record in this case, the Court does not 

find that reopening expert discovery to allow the disclosure of experts regarding Plaintiff’s injuries

related to the invasion of bodily privacy claim will result in prejudice to Defendant. The Court 

further finds that, to the extent Defendant may be prejudiced, such prejudice can be mitigated 

through allowing Defendant to disclose rebuttal experts. 

First, as to the failure of Plaintiff to disclose an expert report from the three non-retained 

experts, Plaintiff contends that no expert report is required from these experts. The Court does not 

herein address or determine whether an expert report is needed from the non-retained experts but 

notes that if the Court reopens expert discovery, such reports can be disclosed if required by 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2).

Second, as to Plaintiff’s prior statement regarding damages, the Court notes that at the time 

Plaintiff made this statement in late July 2016, the issue of invasion of bodily privacy was on 

appeal and was thus not proceeding to trial. (See ECF Nos. 384, 394.) Therefore, Plaintiff’s 

damages statement appears to have related only to the excessive force claims that were still 

proceeding to trial at that time, and not to Plaintiff’s invasion of bodily privacy claim, which was 

on appeal.

Third, any potential prejudice to Defendant can be mitigated by allowing Defendant to 

disclose rebuttal experts.

As to the fourth factor and fifth factors, Defendant asserts that Plaintiff was not diligent in 

pursuing expert discovery prior to the discovery cutoff. However, the Court notes that at the time 

expert discovery closed and indeed until the appeal, Plaintiff was proceeding pro se and thus did 

not have the assistance of counsel. Further, the Court notes that there has been a gap of several 

years since discovery closed, and the Ninth Circuit has issued a decision regarding Plaintiff’s 

Case 1:07-cv-00620-AWI-EPG Document 507 Filed 02/18/20 Page 4 of 5
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

5

invasion of bodily privacy claim in the interim. Plaintiff’s counsel represents that the Ninth Circuit 

decision has “reshaped” the nature of this case. Plaintiff’s counsel also represents that in the years 

since expert discovery closed, the science and research has significantly advanced in the area of 

expertise on which Plaintiff seeks to disclose an additional expert—women’s trauma and posttraumatic stress.

The Court finds that, under the circumstances of this case, Plaintiff has demonstrated good 

cause for reopening expert discovery. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s request and 

reopens expert discovery.

IV. SCHEDULE

The Court sets the following dates and deadlines: 

Fact Discovery Deadline April 17, 2020

Expert Disclosure Deadline May 22, 2020

Rebuttal Expert Disclosure Deadline June 19, 2020

Expert Discovery Cutoff July 17, 2020

Dispositive Motion Filing Deadline August 17, 2020

Pretrial Conference December 17, 2020, at 10:00 am

Hearing on Motions in Limine February 1, 2021, at 1:30 pm

Jury Trial February 17, 2021, at 8:30 am

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 13, 2020 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00620-AWI-EPG Document 507 Filed 02/18/20 Page 5 of 5