Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01083/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01083-11/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
City of Modesto
Defendant
Harden
Defendant
Caeli Koehler
Defendant
B. R.
Plaintiff
Brian Reed
Plaintiff
Ron Ziya
Defendant

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

BRIAN REED, B.R., a minor, by her 

guardian ad litem, Roxanne Sayer,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CITY OF MODESTO, a municipal 

corporation, Chief of Police 

HARDEN, in his individual capacity; 

Police Officer RON ZIYA, Police 

Officer CAELI KOEHLER, in their 

individual and official capacities,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:11-cv-01083-AWI-GSA

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION TO MODIFY THE 

SCHEDULING ORDER

(Doc. 65)

 

Trial Date: December 9, 2014

INTRODUCTION

On October 16, 2014, Defendants City of Modesto, Chief of Police Michael Harden, and 

Officers Ron Ziya and Caelli Koehler (collectively, “Defendants”) filed a motion to modify the 

scheduling order. Doc. 65. Plaintiffs Brian Reed and B. R. (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed an 

opposition and Defendants filed a reply. Docs. 78, 94. The matter was heard on November 17, 

2014. Steven Yourke appeared on behalf of Plaintiffs and Nathan Oyster on behalf of 

Defendants. 

Case 1:11-cv-01083-AWI-GSA Document 100 Filed 11/19/14 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

Having considered the pleadings as well as the arguments presented at the hearing, the 

Court finds that Defendants have not demonstrated good cause to support a modification of the 

scheduling order. Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to modify the scheduling order is DENIED.

DISCUSSION

A. The Parties’ Positions

In the instant motion to modify the scheduling order, Defendants seek to (1) re-open fact 

discovery to allow Defendants to conduct additional written discovery regarding Plaintiff’s 

ongoing medical treatment, a deposition of Plaintiff Brian Reed (“Plaintiff”), and an Independent 

Medical Examination of Plaintiff by a neurologist; (2) re-open expert discovery to allow 

Defendants to designate additional medical experts and Plaintiffs to designate rebuttal experts, 

and to allow for depositions of the nine experts previously designated by the parties as well as of 

any new experts the parties are permitted to designate pursuant to the instant motion; (3) extend

the dispositive motion filing deadline to allow Defendants to file a comprehensive dispositive 

motion; and (4) continue the trial date to May 19, 2015. Doc. 65, Defendants’ Mtn. to Modify

Sched. Order.

Plaintiffs filed an opposition to Defendants’ motion in which they strongly oppose any 

modification of the scheduling order. Plaintiffs argue (1) that Defendants have failed to show that 

they diligently attempted to comply with the scheduling order; and (2) that Defendants have, in 

turn, not made the “good cause” showing required to modify a scheduling order. Plaintiffs sum 

up their position as follows:

This Court modified the Scheduling Order and continued the trial date back on 

March 15, 2013 in order to permit the parties extra time to evaluate Plaintiff’s 

injuries, to disclose medical experts relevant to those injuries and to conduct expert 

discovery relevant to his medical condition. But Defendants never did conduct 

any additional discovery into Plaintiff’s medical condition. They never bothered 

to conduct an IME of Plaintiff. They never disclosed any medical experts to 

testify at trial or any rebuttal experts to testify against Plaintiffs’ disclosed experts. 

Now, having completely neglected to prepare the damages aspect of the case for 

Case 1:11-cv-01083-AWI-GSA Document 100 Filed 11/19/14 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

trial, Defendants have the unmitigated gall to once again demand that this Court 

modify the scheduling order and continue the trial date so that they may do the 

discovery they should have done nearly two years ago. 

Doc. 78, Plaintiffs’ Opp. Br., at 10. 

In their reply brief, Defendants argue that even if “Defendants’ original counsel had 

conducted an independent medical examination and deposed Plaintiff’s expert witnesses, good 

cause would still exist to conduct additional discovery because of the substantial time gap 

between the fact and expert discovery cutoffs and the current trial date.” Doc. 94, Defendants’ 

Reply Br., at 4.

At the hearing on the motion to modify the scheduling order, the parties met and conferred 

in person, outside the presence of the Court. The parties agreed that, regardless of the disposition 

of the instant motion, Plaintiffs’ counsel would turn over all of Plaintiff Brian Reed’s medical 

records that were in his possession, furnish Defendants’ counsel with a medical release signed by 

Plaintiff Brian Reed that would enable Defendants’ counsel to directly obtain records from 

Plaintiff’s medical providers, and produce Plaintiffs’ experts for deposition by Defendant. The 

parties represented to the Court that they would be able to conduct this mutually agreed-upon 

discovery without the intervention of the Court.

B. Procedural History

This case was filed on June 29, 2011. Doc. 1. Trial in the matter was initially set for May 

13, 2013. Doc. 22. Pursuant to the parties’ stipulations, trial was continued to August 6, 2013; 

then to May 14, 2014; and finally to December 9, 2014. Docs. 32, 41, 60. The last continuance 

of the trial date was granted on April 14, 2014, in order to allow Defendants to retain new lead 

counsel, which was accomplished on April 25, 2014. Docs. 60, 61. Trial is currently set for 

December 9, 2014.

As to discovery deadlines, the initial fact discovery deadline was September 7, 2012. 

Case 1:11-cv-01083-AWI-GSA Document 100 Filed 11/19/14 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

Doc. 22. However, on September 25, 2012, the Court extended the fact discovery cut-off to 

November 7, 2012. Doc. 32. The initial expert discovery cut-off was October 5, 2012. Doc. 22. 

This was extended to December 7, 2012; then to February 1, 2013; then to November 1, 2013. 

Docs. 28, 32, 41. The operative cut-off dates for fact and expert discovery thus are November 7, 

2012 and November 1, 2013, respectively.

Finally, regarding motion filing deadlines, the initial nondispositive and dispositive 

motion filing deadlines were November 30, 2012 and December 28, 2012, respectively. Doc. 22. 

These were continued to February 1, 2013 and March 1, 2013 respectively, and, again, to 

November 4, 2013 and November 29, 2013, respectively. Docs. 32, 41. The operative deadlines 

for filing nondispositive and dispositive motions are thus November 4, 2013 and November 29, 

2013. 

C. Legal Standard

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4), a court may modify a scheduling 

order “only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” Rule 16(b)’s good cause inquiry 

focuses primarily on the movant’s diligence. Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 1294-

95 (9th Cir. 2000) (Rule 16(b)’s good cause standard “primarily considers the diligence of the 

party” seeking modification); see also Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 

(9th Cir. 1992) (“good cause” means scheduling deadlines cannot be met despite the moving 

party’s diligence). 

Courts may also consider prejudice to the opposing party in ruling on a motion to modify 

the scheduling order. Coleman, 232 F.3d. at 1295; Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d at 609. 

The focus of the inquiry, however, is on the moving party's actions; if the “[moving] party was 

not diligent, the inquiry should end.” Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d at 609; also see

Zivkovic v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 302 F. 3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002) (“If the party seeking the 

Case 1:11-cv-01083-AWI-GSA Document 100 Filed 11/19/14 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

modification was not diligent, the inquiry should end and the motion to modify should not be 

granted.”) (internal quotation marks omitted). 

Finally, the court has “broad discretion in supervising the pretrial phase of litigation, and 

its decisions regarding the preclusive effect of a pretrial order ... will not be disturbed unless they 

evidence a clear abuse of discretion.” Zivkovic, 302 F. 3d at 1087 (ellipses in original) (citation 

omitted). 

D. Analysis

Here Defendants seek to modify the scheduling order so as to re-open fact and expert 

discovery and to file a dispositive motion, and to continue the trial to enable them to accomplish 

these objectives. Defendants, however, have not established that the modification is warranted 

despite their own diligence. Although, the Court previously granted extensions of discovery 

deadlines, the dispositive motion filing deadline, and the trial date to allow the parties to complete 

discovery regarding the nature and extent of Plaintiff’s injuries and medical treatment and to file

all appropriate motions, Defendants failed to do so or to request additional extensions of time 

within a reasonable period. 

The Court notes that Defendants substituted in new counsel in April 2014. However, 

although the applicable discovery and motion-filing deadlines had passed well before the 

substitution of counsel occurred,1new counsel waited almost six months and until one week 

before the final pretrial conference to request that long-expired deadlines be extended.2See

 

1 Defendants filed the instant motion to modify the scheduling order on October 16, 2014, when the fact discovery 

cut-off was November 7, 2012, the expert discovery cut-off was November 1, 2013, the non-dispositive motion filing 

deadline was November 4, 2013, and the dispositive motion filing deadline was November 29, 2013. 

2

In its April 17, 2014 order continuing the trial date from May 14, 2014 to December 9, 2014, the District Court set a 

further pretrial conference and hearing on any motions in limine for October 22, 2014. Doc. 60. On October 2, 

2014, the Court continued the pre-trial conference/motion in limine hearing to November 13, 2014, to accommodate 

the Court’s schedule. Doc. 63. Defendants’ filed the instant motion to modify the scheduling order on October 16, 

2014, less than a week before the pretrial conference as originally scheduled. Moreover, since the motion to modify 

Case 1:11-cv-01083-AWI-GSA Document 100 Filed 11/19/14 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

Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d at 610 (affirming denial of motion to modify scheduling 

order to allow amendment of the pleadings when the motion was made four months after the cutoff date for amendment specified in the scheduling order). Given this delay, the Court is forced 

to conclude that Defendants have not established “good cause” for modifying the pretrial 

scheduling order. The procedural posture of the case and the previous extensions granted in this 

matter underscore the court’s conclusion that there simply lacks good cause for modifying the 

scheduling order at this juncture. Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to modify the scheduling 

order is DENIED. 

The Court notes that the pretrial conference/hearing on motions in limine and the trial are 

set before District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on November 24, 2014 and December 9, 2014 

respectively. To the extent the parties’ in limine motions or other trial-related briefing implicate

any of issues raised by the parties here, the parties will have the opportunity to bring those issues 

to Judge Ishii’s attention at the upcoming November 24, 2014 hearing. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 19, 2014 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

 

the scheduling order was set for hearing on November 17, 2014, the Court further continued the pretrial 

conference/motion in limine hearing to November 24, 2014.

Case 1:11-cv-01083-AWI-GSA Document 100 Filed 11/19/14 Page 6 of 6