Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01697/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01697-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Timothy Denton
Plaintiff
G4S Secure Solutions (USA) Inc.
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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

TIMOTHY DENTON, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

G4S SECURE SOLUTIONS (USA) INC., 

and DOES 1–100 inclusive, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:14-CV-01697-KJM-CKD 

ORDER 

Timothy Denton alleges retaliation and labor claims against his former employer, 

G4S Secure Solutions (USA) Inc. He now moves to amend the court’s pretrial scheduling order 

to allow discovery to continue after September 7, 2015. G4S opposes the motion. The matter 

was submitted without a hearing, and the motion is GRANTED. 

I. BACKGROUND 

According to his complaint, Denton began working for G4S in February 2011. 

First Am. Compl. ¶ 7. In December 2012, he reported a branch manager had sexually harassed a 

co-worker, id. ¶ 10, and in January 2013, he rejected his supervisors’ request to fabricate 

evidence against a subordinate, id. ¶ 13. G4S then retaliated against him, eventually culminating 

in his termination in December 2013. See generally id. ¶¶ 7–23. In addition, although Denton 

was an hourly employee, G4S attempted to treat him as a salaried employee when that 

Case 2:14-cv-01697-KJM-CKD Document 37 Filed 09/04/15 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

designation was convenient, G4S never issued itemized wage statements, and it withheld his pay 

after he was fired. Id. ¶ 25. 

In his original complaint, filed in state court in August 2013, Denton alleged 

claims for retaliation, failure to prevent retaliation, failure to pay overtime, and failure to provide 

accurate wage statements. See Not. Removal Ex. A, at 8–13, ECF No. 1-1. His complaint also 

included allegations under the California Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA), Labor Code 

sections 2698 et seq. Id. at 6–7. In December 2014, after the case had been removed to this 

court, the court held an initial scheduling conference and issued a status (pretrial scheduling) 

order. ECF Nos. 8, 9. All discovery, expert and non-expert, was to be completed by September 

7, 2015, dispositive motions were to be heard by November 6, 2015, and a trial was set for 

February 22, 2016. See generally id. Any motion to amend the complaint was due by January 

12, 2015. Id. at 2. 

On January 12, 2015, Denton moved to amend his complaint to include three new 

claims: failure to pay wages due on termination, failure to pay minimum wages, and a second 

claim for retaliation. See First Am. Compl. at 14–17; Mot. Am. at 5, ECF No. 10. Because he 

had been fired in the meantime, he would also assert new factual allegations. Mot. Am. at 5. The 

court granted the motion to amend on May 8, 2015, ECF No. 19, and Denton filed an amended 

complaint on May 21, 2015, ECF No. 20. 

On July 24, 2015, Denton moved for leave to serve additional interrogatories 

related to his PAGA claims and to compel G4S to provide further responses to previous 

interrogatories about the claims in his original complaint, noticing a hearing before the assigned 

magistrate judge. ECF No. 24. On August 20, 2015, the magistrate judge issued an order 

granting the motion in part in accordance with a compromise Denton and G4S had reached after 

the motion was filed. ECF No. 32; see also Joint Statement, ECF No. 29. 

On July 28, 2015, after the discovery motion was filed, but before it was resolved, 

Denton filed the current motion to amend the scheduling order. ECF No. 26. He requests an 

extension of at least sixty days. Id. at 3. He argues an extension is required because G4S has 

delayed discovery and withheld documents. 

Case 2:14-cv-01697-KJM-CKD Document 37 Filed 09/04/15 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

II. LEGAL STANDARD 

A pretrial scheduling order may be modified if a party, despite its diligence, cannot 

reasonably be expected to meet the order’s deadlines. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 

975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). When a party requests changes to the scheduling order, the 

court’s inquiry focuses on that party’s honest attempt to comply; he must demonstrate his 

“diligence,” the common antonym for carelessness, questionable strategy, and delay. See, e.g., 

Calderon v. Target Corp., No. 12-1781, 2013 WL 4401430, at *7 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2013); 

Alibaba.com H.K. Ltd. v. P.S. Prods., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36749, at *5–6 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 

2012); Eckert Cold Storage, Inc. v. Behl, 943 F. Supp. 1230, 1233 (E.D. Cal. 1996). Motions are 

more often granted when the opposing party’s actions caused delay or when the delay is due to an 

outside intervening cause. See, e.g., Orozco v. Midland Credit Mgmt. Inc., No. 12-02585, 2013 

WL 3941318, at *3 (E.D. Cal. July 30, 2013) (“[P]laintiff has pursued discovery diligently. It is 

defendant’s dawdling, not plaintiff’s, that caused [the delay].” (citations omitted)); Hood v. 

Hartford Life and Acc. Ins. Co., 567 F. Supp. 2d 1221, 1225–26 (E.D. Cal. 2008) (granting a 

motion to modify the scheduling order after a deposition revealed new information and new case 

law was issued). In all, the decision is one of broad discretion. See Miller v. Safeco Title Ins. 

Co., 758 F.2d 364, 369 (9th Cir. 1985). 

III. DISCUSSION 

Denton argues G4S has delayed discovery and withheld documents in three 

instances. First, he argues that in February 2014, before the case was removed to federal court, he 

requested G4S produce all documents related to his complaints of retaliation or its investigation 

into those complaints, and G4S responded in April 2014 that it would produce those documents. 

Briscoe Decl. Ex. B, at 7–8, ECF No. 24-1. But more than a year later, on May 28, 2015, G4S 

produced several responsive documents it had not produced before. Id. ¶ 3, ECF No. 24. G4S’s 

counsel, Alison Hong, agrees that some responsive documents were produced for the first time on 

May 28, 2015. Hong Decl. ¶ 5, ECF No. 33-1. 

Second, Denton argues that in February 2014, he also requested G4S produce all 

his itemized wage statements, and in April 2014, G4S responded that it had already done so. 

Case 2:14-cv-01697-KJM-CKD Document 37 Filed 09/04/15 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

Briscoe Decl., Ex. B, at 10. But on July 22, 2015, Ms. Hong told Denton G4S would produce 

several new wage statements a few days later. Id. ¶ 6. G4S has still not produced these wage 

statements. See id.; Briscoe Reply Decl., ECF No. 34. Ms. Hong agrees that about three or four 

months of wage statements were not produced, and she does not address Denton’s assertion that 

G4S has not yet produced these wage statements. Hong Decl. ¶ 7. 

Third, Denton argues G4S delayed the deposition of Robert Schreiner, a G4S 

employee. On June 18, 2015, Denton noticed Schreiner’s deposition and requested the 

production of documents related to his deposition. Briscoe Decl. ¶ 5. On July 22, 2015, Ms. 

Hong informed Mr. Briscoe that while Schreiner would appear for his deposition two days later, 

G4S would not produce documents related to his deposition. Id. The deposition was postponed. 

Id. Ms. Hong does not dispute that G4S refused to produce the requested documents, and she 

explains that those requests were duplicative, that G4S had long ago objected to them, and that 

Denton had not challenged the objections. Hong Decl. ¶¶ 8–9. 

In general, G4S responds that these delays were of Denton’s own making and have 

caused him no prejudice. Opp’n 4–7, ECF No. 33. It argues an extension of the discovery 

deadline would serve no purpose because the parties’ discovery dispute was resolved in August 

2015 when the assigned magistrate judge issued her order on Denton’s discovery motion. Id. 

And it claims Denton’s request is a veiled attempt at tardy discovery on his previously pled 

PAGA claims, not the claims he first asserted in the amended complaint. Id. at 8–9. In his reply, 

Denton emphasizes he has not yet received all his wage statements. ECF No. 34. 

Denton has demonstrated good cause for an amendment to the court’s scheduling 

order. He argues, and G4S does not dispute, that it has delayed and withheld production of his 

wage statements and other documents. His wage statements are linked directly to claims asserted 

for the first time in his first amended complaint; G4S’s failure to produce them alone would be 

good cause for an extension. 

G4S correctly argues, however, that Denton had plenty of time to pursue his 

original allegations before the September 7, 2015 deadline, if necessary by appropriate motion. 

Denton’s reply responds only to G4S’s arguments about his wage statements, which tacitly lends 

Case 2:14-cv-01697-KJM-CKD Document 37 Filed 09/04/15 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

support to G4S’s position. For this reason, any discovery after September 7, 2015 may be 

conducted only to support claims Denton asserted for the first time in the first amended 

complaint. In other words, Denton may not seek discovery after September 7, 2015 solely in an 

effort to support claims asserted in his original complaint. 

IV. CONCLUSION 

The motion to amend scheduling order is GRANTED as follows: 

(1) All discovery, lay and expert, shall be completed by November 6, 2015; discovery 

after September 7, 2015 may be conducted only to support allegations asserted for 

the first time in the amended complaint; 

(2) Dispositive motions shall be heard no later than January 15, 2016; 

(3) The final pretrial conference is RESET for May 26, 2016; 

(4) The parties shall file a joint pretrial conference statement no later than May 5, 

2016; 

(5) The jury trial is RESET for July 11, 2016; 

(6) Trial briefs are due by June 27, 2016; and 

(7) The terms of the court’s previously issued status (pretrial scheduling) order, ECF 

No. 9, otherwise remain in effect. 

 This order resolves ECF No. 26. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: September 3, 2015. 

Case 2:14-cv-01697-KJM-CKD Document 37 Filed 09/04/15 Page 5 of 5