Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00558/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00558-22/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1983 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

VICENTE BENAVIDES FIGUEROA,

Plaintiff,

v.

KERN COUNTY, et al.

Defendants.

No. 1:19-cv-00558-KES-CDB

ORDER DENYING COUNTY OF KERN’S 

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF 

DENIAL OF REQUEST TO EXTEND 

REBUTTAL EXPERT DISCLOSURE 

DEADLINE

Doc. 108

Plaintiff Vicente Benavides Figueroa (“Figueroa”) brought this civil rights and negligence 

action against several defendants after the California Supreme Court vacated his criminal 

conviction. Plaintiff alleges that due to defendants’ misconduct he served 25 years in prison for a 

crime he did not commit. The parties jointly moved for an order extending certain case 

management dates as plaintiff’s expert witness was unavailable to appear for deposition due to

unexpected medical reasons. Doc. 102. Defendant County of Kern (“County of Kern”)

separately moved, after the expiration of the rebuttal expert disclosure deadline, for a nunc pro 

tunc extension of that disclosure deadline (Doc. 100), which Figueroa opposed (Doc. 105).

1

 The 

assigned magistrate judge granted the parties’ joint motion, finding good cause to adopt the 

1

 County of Kern was erroneously named in the third amended complaint as “Kern 

County.” Doc. 66.

Case 1:19-cv-00558-KES-CDB Document 152 Filed 01/10/25 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

2

proposed amendments to the scheduling order, but denied County of Kern’s separate motion to 

extend the rebuttal expert disclosure deadline. Doc. 107. The magistrate judge found that County 

of Kern’s request for relief was untimely and that the County failed to demonstrate diligence. 

Doc. 107 at 3–4. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), County of Kern moved for 

reconsideration of the magistrate judge’s order as to the denial of the County’s request to extend 

the rebuttal expert disclosure deadline. Doc. 108. For the reasons discussed below, the Court 

denies the motion for reconsideration.

I. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The first scheduling order in this case was issued on May 3, 2021. Doc. 59. It was 

modified several times pursuant to the parties’ stipulations. Docs. 80, 83, 88, 91, 96. After the 

fourth such stipulated request, the assigned magistrate judge modified the discovery schedule in 

part, extending the date for non-expert discovery to permit the parties to complete limited 

discovery. Doc. 91. The magistrate judge otherwise denied the stipulation, not finding good 

cause to modify the remaining deadlines and warning the parties that further requests for 

extension were strongly discouraged and would not be granted absent a showing of diligence and 

good cause. Doc. 91 at 4.

One month later, County of Kern renewed an earlier request for an extension of time 

relating to the transcription of belatedly discovered aged cassette tapes (Doc. 92), and Figueroa

and counsel for two other defendants joined in County of Kern’s application (Docs. 94, 95). 

Finding good cause, the assigned magistrate judge granted the request and amended the 

scheduling order.2 Doc. 96. Relevant here, the magistrate judge extended the deadline for 

rebuttal expert disclosures by an additional 90 days: from July 12, 2023, to October 12, 2023. Id.

at 3. County of Kern failed to either identify rebuttal experts or move for an extension of the time 

to do so by the October 12, 2023 deadline.

On October 31, 2023, after the rebuttal expert disclosure deadline had passed, County of 

2

 The new discovery deadlines were set as follows: Non-expert discovery: August 15, 2023; 

Expert disclosure: September 14, 2023; Rebuttal disclosure: October 12, 2023; and Expert 

Discovery cut-off: October 31, 2023.

Case 1:19-cv-00558-KES-CDB Document 152 Filed 01/10/25 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

3

Kern moved for a nunc pro tunc extension of that deadline, asserting that it needed additional 

time to identify a rebuttal expert. Doc. 100. Figueroa opposed County of Kern’s request. 

Doc. 105. At the same time, the parties jointly moved for a brief extension of the expert 

discovery deadline and certain motion and trial-related dates, on account of Figueroa’s expert

witness needing to undergo unexpected medical treatment. Doc. 102 at 6. The joint motion

requested that the proposed expert deadline apply only to those expert depositions that had been 

timely noticed by October 31, 2023, which was the expert discovery deadline under the thenexisting scheduling order. Id. at 3, n.1.

Finding good cause as to the joint motion, the magistrate judge issued an order modifying

the scheduling order as requested. Doc. 107. The magistrate judge denied County of Kern’s 

separate request to extend the rebuttal expert deadline, finding that the request was untimely and 

that the County had failed to demonstrate diligence. Id. County of Kern timely objected to the 

magistrate judge’s order. Doc. 108. The motion for reconsideration is fully briefed. Doc. 114 

(“Opp’n”); Doc. 116 (“Reply”).

II. LEGAL STANDARD

A party may object to a magistrate judge's non-dispositive pretrial order within fourteen 

(14) days after service of the order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). The magistrate judge's order will 

be upheld unless it is “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Id.; 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). The 

objecting party has the burden of showing that the magistrate judge's ruling is clearly erroneous 

or contrary to law. In re eBay Seller Antitrust Litig., No. C 07-1882 JF (RS), 2009 WL 3613511, 

at *1 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 28, 2009).

A party seeking reconsideration must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature 

to induce the court to reverse a prior decision. Kern-Tulare Water Dist. v. City of Bakersfield, 

634 F. Supp. 656, 665 (E.D. Cal. 1986), aff'd in part and rev'd in part on other grounds, 828 F.2d 

514 (9th Cir. 1987)). “The ‘clearly erroneous’ standard applies to factual findings and 

discretionary decisions made in connection with non-dispositive pretrial discovery matters.” 

Comput. Econ., Inc. v. Gartner Grp., Inc., 50 F. Supp. 2d 980, 983 (S.D. Cal. 1999) (citing 

Maisonville v. F2 Am., Inc., 902 F.2d 746, 748 (9th Cir. 1990)). Under the “clearly erroneous” 

Case 1:19-cv-00558-KES-CDB Document 152 Filed 01/10/25 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

standard, “the district court can overturn the magistrate judge's ruling only if the district court is 

left with the ‘definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.’” E.E.O.C. v. 

Peters’ Bakery, 301 F.R.D. 482, 484 (N.D. Cal. 2014) (quoting Burdick v. C.I.R., 979 F.2d 1369, 

1370 (9th Cir. 1992)). “Thus, review under the ‘clearly erroneous’ standard is significantly 

deferential.’” Concrete Pipe and Prods. of Cal., Inc. v. Constr. Laborers Pension Tr. For S. Cal., 

508 U.S. 602, 623 (1993).

III. ANALYSIS

County of Kern has failed to show that the magistrate judge’s ruling was clearly erroneous 

or contrary to law. Nor has it demonstrated its diligence sufficient to warrant a modification of 

the rebuttal expert deadline.

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

the amendment.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). 

“The prejudice to other parties, if any, may be considered, but the focus is on the moving party’s 

reason for seeking the modification.” Id. “Relevant inquiries [into diligence] include: whether 

the movant was diligent in helping the court to create a workable Rule 16 order; whether matters 

that were not, and could not have been, foreseeable at the time of the scheduling conference 

caused the need for amendment; and whether the movant was diligent in seeking amendment 

once the need to amend became apparent.” United States ex rel. Terry v. Wasatch Advantage 

Grp., LLC, 327 F.R.D. 395, 404 (E.D. Cal. 2018) (cleaned up and citation omitted). “A party 

demonstrates good cause by establishing that, even with the exercise of due diligence, he or she 

was unable to meet the scheduling deadlines.” Zone Sports Center, LLC v. Rodriguez, No. 1:11-

cv-00622-SKO, 2016 WL 224093, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 19, 2016) (citing Zovkovic v. So. Cal. 

Edison, 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002).3

3 Under Local Rule 144(d), “[c]ounsel shall seek to obtain a necessary extension from the Court 

or from other counsel or parties in an action as soon as the need for an extension becomes 

apparent. Requests for Court-approved extensions brought on the required filing date . . . are 

looked upon with disfavor.” L.R. 144(d) (emphasis added). Here, County of Kern failed to raise 

the issue with opposing counsel or seek an extension until after the October 12, 2023, rebuttal 

expert deadline had expired. See Doc. 107 at 3.

Case 1:19-cv-00558-KES-CDB Document 152 Filed 01/10/25 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

5

In its motion for reconsideration, County of Kern contends Figueroa would not be 

prejudiced by the county’s late disclosure of rebuttal experts because there would be sufficient 

time for Figueroa to adjust his litigation strategy, pointing out that Figueroa would have been

permitted two additional depositions under County of Kern’s proposed revised schedule. 

Doc. 108 at 2–3. County of Kern characterizes its failure to meet the October 12, 2023, deadline 

to identify a rebuttal expert as “harmless.” Id. at 2. However, County of Kern fails to establish 

good cause for its failure to timely disclose rebuttal experts or that it was diligent in seeking an 

extension of the disclosure deadline.

Notwithstanding the multiple prior extensions of the discovery deadlines in this case and 

the magistrate judge’s warning that further requests for extension were strongly discouraged and 

would not be granted absent a showing of diligence and good cause, Kern County’s proffered 

explanation to the magistrate judge failed to establish either showing. County of Kern claimed

that it was unable to timely disclose rebuttal experts because counsel was busy with other trials, 

the county litigation department was understaffed, and, despite “diligently searching for potential 

rebuttal experts,” counsel had been unable to locate a rebuttal expert until after the deadline had 

passed. Id. at 3. At a hearing before the magistrate judge, County of Kern also indicated that it 

consciously intended to delay its rebuttal expert disclosures pending testimony by plaintiffs’

expert, apparently without regard for the court’s scheduling deadline:

COURT: As I understand from the various filings here, you did not timely 

notice rebuttal experts for two reasons: One is you were 

consciously delaying disclosure until after you had the benefit 

of affirmative expert evidence or testimony from the Plaintiffs.

And, secondly, you've had a difficulty finding at the time, at 

least, one category, if not both categories, of rebuttal experts. 

And on top of that, you were very busy with trials.

Do I accurately have—those are the three grounds on which 

you're asking for mercy with respect to having failed to timely 

notice your rebuttal experts on October 12th?

COUNSEL (COUNTY OF KERN): Yes, Your Honor. That is an accurate 

summary.

Doc. 110 (Trans. at 5:3–16). The magistrate judge also asked when County of Kern first 

informed Figueroa about its lack of rebuttal experts, and defense counsel conceded that “it was on 

Case 1:19-cv-00558-KES-CDB Document 152 Filed 01/10/25 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

or about October 18th,” after the October 12, 2023 disclosure deadline. Id. at 6:16–17. 

County of Kern obtained several extensions to the scheduling order over the course of two 

years after the initial scheduling order was issued, and it had extensive time in which to procure 

experts. See docket. In its motion to the magistrate judge, County of Kern did not explain in 

meaningful detail what efforts it took to locate rebuttal experts before the expiration of the 

October 12, 2023 deadline. Doc. 100 at 5–6. Nor does the County explain in its motion for 

reconsideration why the expert it ultimately located could not have been timely identified and 

noticed. Doc. 108 at 4. As noted above, County of Kern also indicated to the magistrate judge, 

somewhat inconsistently, that it had consciously delayed disclosure of any rebuttal expert. 

Doc. 110 (Trans. at 5:3–16). 

Accordingly, County of Kern has failed to show that the magistrate judge’s ruling was 

clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, County of Kern’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. 108) is 

denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 10, 2025 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-00558-KES-CDB Document 152 Filed 01/10/25 Page 6 of 6