Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-02944/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-02944-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Sara Monroe
Plaintiff
Zimmer US, Inc.
Defendant
Zimmer, 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 The motion is characterized as a motion to extend

discovery dates. However, because the discovery deadlines at

issue have already passed, the court interprets the motion as one

to reopen discovery.

Plaintiff concurrently filed a motion to stay proceedings

pending ruling by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. 

Because the Panel has denied the motion for centralization, the

court DENIES the motion to stay as MOOT.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

SARA MONROE,

NO. 2:08-cv-2944 FCD EFB

Plaintiff,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ZIMMER US, INC.; ZIMMER, INC.;

and Does 1 through 25,

Defendants.

_____________________________/

----oo0oo----

This matter is before the court on plaintiff Sara Monroe’s

(“plaintiff” or “Monroe”) motion to modify the pretrial

scheduling order, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16,

to re-open discovery cut-off and expert disclosure dates for at

least thirty (30) days.1 Defendants Zimmer US, Inc. and Zimmer,

Case 2:08-cv-02944-FCD-EFB Document 43 Filed 04/16/10 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. 230(g).

2

Inc. (collectively “defendants”) oppose the motion. For the

reasons set forth below,2 plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED.

BACKGROUND

On October 16, 2008, plaintiff filed a complaint in the

Superior Court of the State of California for the County of

Shasta against defendant, alleging state law claims of general

negligence and products liability. Defendant removed the case

from state court on December 3, 2008 on the basis of diversity

jurisdiction. The parties filed a Joint Status Report on

February 2, 2009. 

On February 3, 2009, the court issued a Pretrial Scheduling

Order, setting a discovery deadline of February 5, 2010. Initial

expert disclosures were due on February 19, 2010 and supplemental

expert disclosures were due on March 11, 2010. On March 6, the

parties stipulated to extend the supplemental expert witness

disclosure deadline to April 5, 2010. 

Plaintiffs’ counsel contends that he was unaware of the

discovery deadline until January 21, 2010 because his assistant

failed to follow the customary practice of noting dates months

ahead of the deadlines to conduct discovery and to retain

experts. (Decl. of Bonnie Prather (“Prather Decl.”), filed Feb.

18, 2010, ¶ 3; Decl. of Steward C. Altemus (“Altemus Decl.”),

filed Feb. 18, 2010, ¶ 22.) Counsel also contends that because

he practices almost exclusively in state court where discovery is

only cut-off in the two months prior to trial, he did not

Case 2:08-cv-02944-FCD-EFB Document 43 Filed 04/16/10 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 Plaintiff filed this stipulation on February 5, 2010. 

However, defendants objected to the stipulation on February 8,

2010, because the stipulation was entered into solely in the

event that there was a problem getting the depositions of the

plaintiff and her treating doctor completed. (Id. ¶ 34.) 

Plaintiff’s counsel admits that he should not have filed the

stipulation without further communication with defense counsel. 

(Id. ¶ 35.)

3

contemplate that discovery deadlines were close or had passed. 

(Altemus Decl. ¶¶ 16, 19.) Counsel also believed that fact

discovery had been extended to March 8, 2010, based on a

stipulation that had not been filed with the court.3

 (Id. ¶ 34.) 

 Furthermore, plaintiff’s counsel asserts that he did not

realize defendants intended to challenge the qualifications of

plaintiff’s expert until the deposition taken on February 2,

2010. (Id. ¶¶ 25, 28.) At that point he realized he needed to

retain the testimony of an expert to opine on the relationship

between the medical device used in plaintiff’s case and the

damages suffered by plaintiff. (Id. ¶ 29.) 

On February 18, 2010, plaintiff filed a motion to modify the

pretrial scheduling order to reopen discovery. Plaintiff

contends that such an extension is necessary to complete

discovery, including both factual discovery and expert

disclosures. (See id. ¶ 47.) 

ANALYSIS

A pretrial order “may be modified only for 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

Case 2:08-cv-02944-FCD-EFB Document 43 Filed 04/16/10 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

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. 

The moving party may establish good cause by showing “(1)

that [he or she] was diligent in assisting the court in creating

a workable Rule 16 order; (2) that [his or her] noncompliance

with a Rule 16 deadline occurred or will occur, notwithstanding

[his or her] diligent efforts to comply, because of the

development of matters which could not have been reasonably

foreseen or anticipated at the time of the Rule 16 scheduling

conference; and (3) that [he or she] was diligent in seeking

amendment of the Rule 16 order, once it became apparent that [he

or she] could not comply with the order.” Jackson v. Laureate,

Inc., 186 F.R.D. 605, 608 (E.D. Cal. 1999)(citations omitted).

Plaintiff has demonstrated good cause to modify the Pretrial

Scheduling Order to reopen both fact and expert discovery. 

Plaintiff was diligent in assisting the court in creating a

workable scheduling order. Further, the delay in responding to

discovery in this case was caused by calendaring errors by

plaintiff’s counsel’s assistant as well as counsel’s lack of

experience in federal court. Moreover, plaintiff’s counsel has

been cooperative in signing stipulations to extend discovery for

almost a month with respect to defendant’s supplemental expert

disclosures. Finally, plaintiff filed this motion on February

18, 2010, promptly after it became apparent that she could not

Case 2:08-cv-02944-FCD-EFB Document 43 Filed 04/16/10 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

comply with the scheduling order. Plaintiff has set forth a

detailed list of the anticipated discovery and estimated time to

complete it. Because plaintiff has demonstrated good cause, her

motion to modify the pretrial scheduling order is GRANTED, and

discovery is reopened. 

The scheduling order is modified as follows: 

(1) All discovery shall be completed by May 21, 2010.

(2) Experts shall be designated by June 4, 2010. 

Supplemental experts shall be designated by June 25,

2010. All expert discovery shall be completed by July

23, 2010.

(3) All dispositive motions shall be heard no later than

October 8, 2010.

(4) The Final Pretrial Conference is set for December 3,

2010 at 1:30 p.m.

(5) The trial is set for March 1, 2011 at 9:00 a.m. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 16, 2010

 

 

FRANK C. DAMRELL, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:08-cv-02944-FCD-EFB Document 43 Filed 04/16/10 Page 5 of 5