Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00378/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00378-8/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Forest Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Defendant
Eric Edward Juell
Plaintiff
David Williams
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 All further references to a “Rule” are to the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure, unless otherwise noted.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

ERIC EDWARD JUELL,

NO. CIV S-05-0378 FCD/GGH

Plaintiff,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

FOREST PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.

and DAVID WILLIAMS,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

This matter is before the court on defendants’ motion to

amend the pretrial order pursuant to Rule 16 of the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure1 to reopen plaintiff’s deposition and to

compel plaintiff to provide an authorization for his driving

record. Plaintiff opposes defendants’ motion to reopen his

deposition, but has withdrawn his objection regarding his driving

///

///

///

Case 2:05-cv-00378-FCD-GGH Document 134 Filed 09/06/07 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 Because oral argument will not be of material

assistance, the court orders the matter submitted on the briefs. 

E.D. Cal. L.R. 78-230(h).

2

record. For the reasons set forth below,2 defendants’ motion is

GRANTED.

BACKGROUND

On January 26, 2005, plaintiff filed a complaint in Nevada

County Superior Court against defendants, alleging state claims

of discrimination on the basis of age, harassment on the basis of

age, wrongful termination in violation of public policy and

failure to prevent harassment in violation of California

Government Code § 12940(k). Defendants removed the case from

state court in February 2005 on the basis of diversity

jurisdiction. 

On May 2, 2005, the court issued a pretrial scheduling

order, setting the deadline for designation of experts for

January 6, 2006 and the discovery deadline for March 3, 2006. 

Subsequently, on March 24, 2006, the court extended the discovery

deadlines to allow defendants to depose plaintiff’s belatedly

disclosed expert and to designate a rebuttal expert. (Mem. &

Order [Docket #34], filed Mar. 24, 2006). Thereafter, in June

2006, the court again modified the scheduling order to allow

defendants to bring a motion to compel an examination of

plaintiff pursuant to Rule 35. (Order [Docket # 50], filed June

20, 2006). On September 12, 2006, the court issued its

Memorandum and Order, denying defendants’ motion for summary

judgment. (Mem. & Order [Docket #104], filed Sept. 12, 2006). 

The court held a pretrial conference with the parties on October

Case 2:05-cv-00378-FCD-GGH Document 134 Filed 09/06/07 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

27, 2006 and issued a pretrial order on November 20, 2006. 

(Pretrial Order [Docket #110], filed Nov. 20, 2006). The case is

currently set for trial on October 23, 2007.

On August 8, 2007, defendants filed a motion to amend the

pretrial order to reopen plaintiff’s deposition and to compel

plaintiff to provide an authorization for his driving record. 

Defendants base their motion on the following facts, which they

assert were only recently discovered: (1) plaintiff is now able

to work and has begun a new business venture; (2) plaintiff pled

nolo contendere to a misdemeanor vehicle code violation shortly

before he left his employment in 2003; (3) plaintiff was treated

by one of the medical experts in this case as a result of the

plea; and (4) plaintiff pled nolo contendere to DUI charges in

March 2007. Defendants contend that these facts relate to

plaintiff’s claims for emotional distress and damages and that

further discovery is necessary before trial. 

ANALYSIS

Following a pretrial conference, the pretrial order “shall

be modified only to prevent manifest injustice.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

16(e). The party seeking the modification bears the burden of

demonstrating that an amendment is necessary. Galdamez v.

Potter, 415 F.3d 1015, 1020 (9th Cir. 2005). The Ninth Circuit

has enumerated four factors for the district court to consider in

deciding whether to modify a pretrial order: (1) the degree of

prejudice or surprise if the order is modified; (2) the ability

of the non-moving party to cure any prejudice; (3) the impact of

the modification on the orderly and efficient conduct of the

case; and (4) any degree of willfulness or bad faith on the part

Case 2:05-cv-00378-FCD-GGH Document 134 Filed 09/06/07 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

3 Plaintiff contends that if defendants are allowed

discovery, he should be allowed additional discovery as well. 

However, the court does not address this issue as there is no

such pending motion filed before it. 

4

of the party seeking the modification. Id.; Byrd v. Guess, 137

F.3d 1126, 1132 (9th Cir. 1989) (abrogated on other grounds). 

Defendants have demonstrated that the limited requested

discovery is necessary to prevent manifest injustice. 

Specifically, defendants seek to conduct further discovery in

relation to plaintiff’s claim for emotional distress damages. 

Defendants seek only to reopen plaintiff’s deposition and to

obtain his driving record. It can be assumed that plaintiff is

and has been aware of both his own knowledge and his driving

record; as such, there is no surprise. Moreover, the only

prejudice claimed by plaintiff is that preparation for a

deposition will distract from trial preparation. The pretrial

order in this case was filed months before defendants’ filing of

this motion. As such, plaintiff had an expansive amount of time

to prepare for trial. Conversely, defendants have not had an

opportunity to question plaintiff about facts that may be

relevant to his claims, such as his new career that began after

the close of discovery and issuance of the pretrial order. 

Defendants contend that the trial date will not need to be

postponed for this limited discovery, and thus, the modification

will not disrupt the orderly and efficient resolution of this

matter.3 However, even if defendants’ requested discovery will

require further extension of the trial date, such modification

remains necessary. Without further investigation into these

facts, neither party will be able to file coherent motions in

Case 2:05-cv-00378-FCD-GGH Document 134 Filed 09/06/07 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

4 It appears that such motions are to be expected. In his

opposition, plaintiff objects to the admissibility of his

misdemeanor vehicle violations on the grounds that it is improper

character evidence. The court notes, without ruling, that there

could be alternative grounds for the admissibility of this

evidence. However, such objections are appropriately brought as

motions in limine. 

5

limine with regard to these matters.4

 Moreover, the court is not

inclined to allow a jury trial to become a fishing expedition for

further information on these incidents, or alternatively, to

address these issues outside of the presence of the jury during

trial without the benefit of any formal discovery. Finally,

there is no evidence of willfulness or bad faith by defendants.

Accordingly, the pretrial order is modified to allow

defendants to reopen plaintiff’s deposition for discovery on the

following issues: (1) plaintiff’s ability to work and new

business venture; (2) plaintiff’s misdemeanor vehicle code

violation in 2003; (3) plaintiff’s treatment by one of the

medical experts as a result of the plea; and (4) plaintiff’s DUI

charges in 2007.

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 6, 2007 

Case 2:05-cv-00378-FCD-GGH Document 134 Filed 09/06/07 Page 5 of 5