Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01486/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01486-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
FAF Inc
Cross Claimant
Ruth Ann Hayden
Cross Defendant
David Gregory Singleton
Plaintiff
Linda Joy Singleton
Plaintiff
USA
Cross Claimant

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

DAVID GREGORY SINGLETON and

LINDA JOY SINGLETON,

NO. CIV S-04-1486 FCD DAD

Plaintiffs,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, FAF,

INCORPORATED, RUTH ANN HAYDEN,

and DOES I through X,

inclusive,

Defendants. ______________________________

FAF INCORPORATED,

Cross-claimant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Cross-defendant. ______________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Cross-claimant,

v.

FAF INCORPORATED AND RUTH

ANN HAYDEN,

Cross-defendants, ______________________________

Case 2:04-cv-01486-FCD-DAD Document 47 Filed 11/15/06 Page 1 of 4
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 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

----oo0oo----

The court is in receipt of defendant United States’ motion

to amend the Pretrial Scheduling Order to extend the expert

witness disclosure date pursuant to Rule 16 of the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure and defendant’s ex parte application for an

order shortening time to hear the motion. The court is also in

receipt of plaintiffs’ opposition to defendant’s ex parte

application.1 

A pretrial order “shall not be modified except upon a

showing of good cause.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b). The district

court may modify the pretrial schedule “if it cannot reasonably

be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.” 

Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir.

1992) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 16, advisory committee’s notes

(1983 amendment)). The “good cause” standard set forth in Rule

16 primarily focuses upon the diligence of the party requesting

the amendment. “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.” Id.

In this case, defendant United States asserts that there is

good cause to extend the expert disclosure date because of a

recent substitution of counsel. The current Assistant United

States Attorney (“AUSA”), Kurt A. Didier, was substituted in this

case after the former AUSA handling this case left the U.S.

Case 2:04-cv-01486-FCD-DAD Document 47 Filed 11/15/06 Page 2 of 4
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

Attorney’s Office for a position in Washington D.C. with

apparently little transition time to wrap-up her professional and

personal affairs. By stipulation of the parties, discovery in

this case was bifurcated as to liability and damages. The close

of discovery for the liability phase was June 30, 2006, with the

last day to file dispositive motions on July 31, 2006. In

regards to the damages phase, the deadline for expert witness

disclosure is November 20, 2006. AUSA Didier was substituted in

this case on September 26, 2006. Counsel asserts that he spoke

to plaintiffs’ counsel about this case during the last two weeks

of October 2006 and advised that he was still getting familiar

with this case. Counsel also asserts that he spoke to

plaintiffs’ counsel during the week of November 6, 2006, in an

attempt to reach an agreement regarding an extension for expert

disclosure, but that no such agreement was reached. Defendant

United States’ experts will not be available to examine plaintiff

and prepare their reports until December 2006 or January 2007. 

Defendant states that it agrees to make its experts available for

deposition thirty (30) days beyond the February 26, 2007

discovery cut-off date and that it will not oppose plaintiffs’

retention of a supplemental expert. Trial in this case is set

for July 24, 2007. 

The facts presented to the court demonstrate diligence by

defendant United States and establish good cause to extend the

expert disclosure deadlines until January 26, 2007. Therefore,

defendant’s application for an order shortening time is GRANTED

and defendant’s motion to modify the Pretrial Scheduling Order is

GRANTED. Accordingly, the Pretrial Scheduling Order is AMENDED 

Case 2:04-cv-01486-FCD-DAD Document 47 Filed 11/15/06 Page 3 of 4
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

to allow defendant United States until January 26, 2007, to file

and serve the reports of Richard Imes, M.D. and Robert Asarnow,

Ph.D.

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 15, 2006

Case 2:04-cv-01486-FCD-DAD Document 47 Filed 11/15/06 Page 4 of 4