Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01136/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01136-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Firstsource Solutions USA, LLC
Counter Defendant
Tulare Regional Medical Center
Counter 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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FIRSTSOURCE SOLUTIONS USA, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

TULARE REGIONAL MEDICAL 

CENTER,

Defendant.

No. 1:15-cv-01136-DAD-EPG

AMENDED ORDER GRANTING EX PARTE 

APPLICATION TO CONTINUE ALL 

DEADLINES AND TRIAL1

(Doc. No. 35)

Before the court is defendant Tulare Regional Medical Center’s (“TRMC”) ex parte 

application to continue all deadlines and trial by forty-five days. (Doc. No. 35.) TRMC argues 

that in June 2016, plaintiff Firstsource Solutions USA, LLC (“Firstsource”) propounded 

discovery requests seeking production of all documents relating to every hospital-patient 

transaction for which Firstsource failed to collect. (Id. at 4.) The task of obtaining and producing 

these documents, TRMC argues, has required TRMC to retain two consultants to locate, analyze, 

and export the data, and that task could not be completed by the non-expert discovery cut-off of 

September 22, 2016. (Id. at 2.)

 

1 Due to an inadvertent error in the heading of the order filed October 21, 2016, making erroneous 

reference to the denial of plaintiff’s pending motion for summary judgment without prejudice,

this amended order supersedes the court’s prior order for all purposes. See fn. 2, below.

Case 1:15-cv-01136-DAD-EPG Document 46 Filed 11/01/16 Page 1 of 3
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

In opposition, plaintiff contends that TRMC initially produced thirty-two pages of 

documents in response to plaintiff’s request, and “never told Firstsource that it had more 

documents it was not producing.” (Doc. No. 36 at 2.) In a supplemental brief, plaintiff states that 

on the night of September 22, 2016, the discovery cut-off date, defendant produced files totaling 

584 megabytes purportedly containing data relating to patient transactions during the relevant 

time period. (Doc. No. 37 at 2.) Defendant’s counsel stated that “[t]he data produced is overinclusive because TRMC’s second consultant has not yet had time to sync and analyze the 

data . . . . We will provide additional information once the second consultant has completed his 

work.” (Id.) Plaintiff Firstsource argues that such a production imposes an unnecessary burden 

on it, and that TRMC should be barred from relying on any of the information in this production 

at trial. (Id. at 3.) On October 18, 2016, plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 

No. 40.) 

District courts have the authority to modify a scheduling order for good cause. Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 16(b)(4). The “good cause” standard “primarily considers the diligence of the party 

seeking the amendment.” See Johnson v. Mammoth Re-creations, 975 F.2d 604, 608 (9th Cir.

1992). In this regard, the court may modify a scheduling order deadline “if it cannot reasonably 

be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.” Id.; see also Zivkovich v. 

Southern California Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002) (“If the party seeking the 

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

granted.”). Having considered the parties’ briefs, the court finds good cause to grant defendant’s 

ex parte application to modify the scheduling order in this case. Defendant TRMC has 

demonstrated that it has been diligent in identifying and exporting data responsive to plaintiff’s 

request and appears to have made its best effort at producing such data prior to the scheduled 

close of discovery. Moreover, to the extent plaintiff argues TRMC previously failed to identify 

these documents pursuant to Rule 26(a)(1)(A) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, plaintiff 

has not shown that these documents must be excluded. Parties have an ongoing duty to 

supplement or correct their disclosures “in a timely manner” throughout the litigation. Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 26(e)(1). Thus, the court finds that a modest continuance sought by defendant is 

Case 1:15-cv-01136-DAD-EPG Document 46 Filed 11/01/16 Page 2 of 3
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

appropriate and should provide defendant adequate time to complete its production in a 

reasonable manner. 

For the reasons set forth above, the court finds good cause to grant defendant’s ex parte 

application (Doc. No. 35). Accordingly, 

1. The non-expert discovery cut-off in this action is continued from September 22, 2016 

to November 6, 2016; 

2. The date of disclosure of expert witnesses and production of expert witness reports is 

continued from September 30, 2016 to November 14, 2016; 

3. The date of supplemental disclosure of expert witnesses and production of 

supplemental expert witness reports is continued from October 27, 2016 to December 

12, 2016; 

4. The expert discovery cut-off is continued from November 18, 2016 to January 2, 

2017; 

5. The dispositive motion hearing cutoff is continued from January 3, 2017 to February 

17, 2017; 

6. The final pretrial conference is continued from February 27, 2017 to April 17, 2017, 

at 2:30 p.m.; and

7. The trial is continued from April 25, 2017 to June 13, 2017, at 8:30 a.m.2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 1, 2016 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

2

In light of this order it may well be that plaintiff Firstsource’s recently filed motion for summary 

judgment (Doc. No. 40), should be denied without prejudice to its refiling after the close of nonexpert discovery. At the very least, it may be that the motion should be continued for hearing so 

that opposition to it may be filed following the newly established close of discovery date. The 

parties are directed to confer and, if possible, submit a stipulation and proposed order to the court 

with respect to the hearing of that pending motion or otherwise advise the court of their respective 

positions with respect to that issue. 

Case 1:15-cv-01136-DAD-EPG Document 46 Filed 11/01/16 Page 3 of 3