Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01945/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01945-6/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Department of Motor Vehicles
Defendant
Gary Goethe
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

GARY GOETHE,

No. 2:07-cv-01945-MCE-GGH

Plaintiff,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES,

Defendant.

----oo0oo----

Defendant, the Department of Motor Vehicles (“Defendant”),

brings the current motion to amend their answer to Plaintiff Gary

Goethe’s (“Plaintiff”) Second Amended Complaint. For the reason

set forth below, Defendant’s motion is denied.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed his original Complaint on September 17,

2007. Plaintiff claims he was subject to discrimination based on

“race” and “retaliation” following a discrimination suit

Plaintiff filed against Defendant in 1995. 

Case 2:07-cv-01945-MCE-GGH Document 64 Filed 10/29/09 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

 At the time of the October 22, 2009 hearing on this 1

matter, Defendant conceded that the assault conviction was a

misdemeanor.

2

Plaintiff alleges that between 1998 and 2000, he submitted 41 job

applications for lateral transfers or promotion. According to

Plaintiff, he only received two interviews and was rejected for

both positions despite good qualifications.

Plaintiff was eventually promoted in 2001, but again from

2003-2006 Plaintiff claims he applied for several lateral

transfers or promotions and was denied. Plaintiff further alleges

Defendant gave none of the senior management positions to African

Americans. Currently, Plaintiff has two causes of action against

Defendant: 1) Disparate Treatment Discrimination in Violation of

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et

seq.; and 2) Retaliation in Violation of Title VII of the Civil

Rights Acts of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.

This Court issued its Pretrial Scheduling Order (“PTSO”) on

March 27, 2009. Pursuant to the terms of that order the Court

noted that “[n]o further amendments to pleadings is permitted

without leave of court, good cause having been shown.” The

discovery cut-off date is November 30, 2009.

In July 2009, Plaintiff was arrested on a separate criminal

matter. Defendant claims this information led them to investigate

and discover that Plaintiff had a ten-year old assault

conviction. Defendant alleges that this information would have 1

disqualified Plaintiff from supervision positions. On September 22,

2009, Defendant filed the instant motion to amend their answer to

include the affirmative defense of after-acquired evidence. 

Case 2:07-cv-01945-MCE-GGH Document 64 Filed 10/29/09 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

 Unless otherwise stated, all references to “Rule” or 2

“Rules” refer to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

3

STANDARD

Once a district court has filed a PTSO pursuant to Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 16, which establishes a timetable to 2

amend pleadings, that Rule’s standards control. Johnson v.

Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607-08 (9th Cir. 1992). 

Thus, Defendant’s ability to amend the answer is governed by

Rule 16(b), not Rule 15(a). See Id. at 608. In addition, prior

to the final pretrial conference, a court may modify a status

order upon a showing of “good cause.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b).

“Unlike Rule 15(a)’s liberal amendment policy which focuses

on the bad faith of the party seeking to interpose an amendment

and the prejudice to the opposing party, Rule 16(b)’s ‘good

cause’ standard primarily considers the diligence of the party

seeking the amendment.” Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. In explaining

this standard, the Ninth Circuit has stated:

[a] district court may modify the pretrial schedule ‘if

it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of

the party seeking the extension.’ Moreover,

carelessness is not compatible with a finding of

diligence and offers no reason for granting of relief. 

Although the existence or degree of prejudice to the

party opposing the modification might supply additional

reasons to deny a motion, the focus of the inquiry is

upon the moving party’s reasons for seeking

modification. If that party was not diligent, the

inquiry should end.

Id. (citations omitted).

///

///

///

Case 2:07-cv-01945-MCE-GGH Document 64 Filed 10/29/09 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

ANALYSIS

To demonstrate diligence under Rule 16's “good cause”

standard, courts have required movants to show the following:

(1) that they were diligent in assisting the Court in creating a

workable Rule 16 order, see In re San Juan Dupont Plaza Hotel

Fire Litig., 111 F.3d 220, 228 (1st Cir. 1997); (2) that, despite

their diligent efforts to comply, their noncompliance with a

Rule 16 deadline occurred because of the development of matters

that could not have been reasonably foreseen or anticipated, see

Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609; and (3) that they were diligent in

seeking amendment of the Rule 16 order, once it became apparent

that they could not comply with the order, see Eckert Cold

Storage, Inc. v. Behl, 943 F. Supp. 1230, 1233 (E.D. Cal. 1996).

Jackson v. Laureate, Inc., 186 F.R.D. 605, 608 (E.D. Cal. 1999).

Defendant has not shown that their failure to comply was a

result of development of matters that could not have been

anticipated or reasonably foreseen. Plaintiff initiated this suit

approximately two years ago and Plaintiff’s misdemeanor assault

conviction has been a matter of public record for at least ten

years. Defendant could easily have discovered the misdemeanor

conviction as was eventually done. Furthermore, the misdemeanor

conviction is likely inadmissible hearsay evidence. 

Defendant fails to demonstrate the necessary diligence and

as such has failed to meet the “good cause” standard necessary

under Rule 16. Defendant’s motion is therefore denied.

///

///

Case 2:07-cv-01945-MCE-GGH Document 64 Filed 10/29/09 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

CONCLUSION

Defendant’s Motion for Leave to Amend the Answer to the

Second Amended Complaint (Docket No. 44) is DENIED. As discussed

at the Hearing on October 22, 2009, certain evidence pertaining

to the misdemeanor conviction may nonetheless be permissible for

impeachment purposes. Any ruling in that regard will be made

during trial. Finally, in accordance with the parties’ request

that the discovery deadline be extended for the limited purpose

of deposing Plaintiff, Marilyn King, and Rhonda Kraft, along with

any discovery related to those depositions, the Court grants an

extension of discovery to and including February 1, 2010, for

purposes of concluding that limited discovery.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 28, 2009

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:07-cv-01945-MCE-GGH Document 64 Filed 10/29/09 Page 5 of 5