Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01563/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01563-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 315
Nature of Suit: Airplane Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Product Liability

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ERIC HENRIKSON, et al.,

Plaintiffs, No. CIV S-06-1563 WBS DAD

v.

TURBOMECA, S.A., et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Defendants have filed a motion to compel answers to interrogatories complaining

that all plaintiffs responded to the interrogatories “with identical, meritless objections to each

interrogatory and no responsive information whatever.” Defendants’ set their motion to compel 

for hearing before the undersigned on March 28, 2008.

The Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order issued by the assigned district judge on

February 6, 2007 includes the following relevant provisions:

All discovery, including depositions for preservation of

testimony, is left open, save and except that it shall be so

conducted as to be completed by January 22, 2008. The word

“completed” means that all discovery shall have been conducted so

that all depositions have been taken and any disputes relevant to

discovery shall have been resolved by appropriate order if

necessary and, where discovery has been ordered, the order has

been obeyed. All motions to compel discovery must be noticed on

the magistrate judge’s calendar in accordance with the local rules

Case 2:06-cv-01563-WBS-DAD Document 104 Filed 03/06/08 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

2

of this court and so that such motions may be heard (and any

resulting orders obeyed) not later than January 22, 2008.

. . . . 

Any requests to modify the dates or terms of this

Scheduling Order, except requests to change the dates of the final

Pretrial Conference or trial, may be heard and decided by the

assigned Magistrate Judge.

(Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order filed Feb. 6, 2007, at 3 & 5 (emphasis in original).)

Defendants’ motion to compel answers to interrogatories was not “noticed on the

magistrate judge’s calendar in accordance with the local rules of this court and so that such

motion[] may be heard (and any resulting orders obeyed) not later than January 22, 2008.” To

cure this defect, defendants have included in their discovery motion a request that the

undersigned modify the February 6, 2007 Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order to allow defendants

to bring their discovery motion and have it heard after the discovery cut-off date.

Defendants’ request to modify the Scheduling Order is made pursuant to Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b) and is also grounded on the provision of the Scheduling Order that

authorizes the assigned magistrate judge to decide any requests to modify the dates or terms of

the Scheduling Order, other than requests to change the Pretrial Conference and trial dates. 

Defendants assert that good cause exists to modify the Scheduling Order because “Turbomeca

has been diligent in conducting discovery and propounded contention interrogatories to be

answered just before the end of the discovery period when the information, if any, supporting

plaintiffs’ contentions would be fully developed.” (Defs.’ Mot. to Compel filed Mar. 4, 2008, at

1.) Defendants assert further that “Plaintiffs’ refusal to answer the interrogatories, apparently

based on the assumption that Turbomeca would have insufficient time to bring a motion to

compel challenging that refusal, should not be countenanced.” (Id.) Defendants’ request to

modify the Scheduling Order is not supported by declarations or briefing.

The docket reveals that on February 29, 2008, defendants filed a separate motion

to modify the Scheduling Order. That motion, however, is set for hearing before the assigned

Case 2:06-cv-01563-WBS-DAD Document 104 Filed 03/06/08 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

 Defendants indicate that their first set of interrogatories was “dated December 20, 1

2007.” (Defs.’ Mot. to Compel Answers filed Mar. 4, 2008, at 2.) If the set of interrogatories

was served on December 20, 2007, the 30-day period for responding, plus 3 days for service,

ended on January 22, 2008, the discovery cut-off date. 

3

district judge on March 31, 2008, and seeks a 60-day continuance of the dates set for Pretrial

Conference and trial, as well as new dates for initial and rebuttal expert disclosure and

completion of expert depositions. Defendants assert that there is “good cause for a short

extension because, despite the diligence of the parties in completing discovery by the January 22,

2008 discovery cut-off, there is insufficient time for the parties to prepare for the Pretrial

Conference on June 30, 2008 and trial beginning on August 12, 2008, including the completion

of expert disclosure and depositions, determination of dispositive motions, and designation [of]

videotaped deposition testimony.” (Defs.’ Mot. to Modify Scheduling Order filed Feb. 29, 2008,

at 2.) Law and motion cut-off is currently set for March 31, 2008.

Discovery closed in this case on January 22, 2008, pursuant to the operative

Scheduling Order. No discovery motion may be filed unless and until discovery has been

reopened. Accordingly, defendants’ motion to compel will be denied without prejudice. If

defendants choose to file a motion to re-open discovery, the motion must demonstrate good cause

to re-open discovery and for defendants’ decision to serve their first set of interrogatories on a

date that made plaintiffs’ responses due on the discovery cut-off date, in contravention of the 1

order requiring the parties to conduct discovery so that any disputes “shall have been resolved by

appropriate order if necessary and, where discovery has been ordered, the order has been obeyed”

by January 22, 2008. The undersigned will not entertain a motion to re-open discovery prior to

the district judge’s disposition of defendants’ February 29, 2008 motion to modify the

Scheduling Order with regard to Pretrial Conference and trial. 

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:06-cv-01563-WBS-DAD Document 104 Filed 03/06/08 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

4

IT IS ORDERED that defendants’ March 4, 2008 motion to compel answers to

interrogatories is denied without prejudice, and the motion is dropped from the court’s calendar.

DATED: March 6, 2008.

DAD:kw

Ddad1/orders.civil/henrikson1563.mtc.den

Case 2:06-cv-01563-WBS-DAD Document 104 Filed 03/06/08 Page 4 of 4