Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01259/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01259-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Bob Ashworth
Defendant
Tom Becker
Defendant
Joe Brock
Defendant
Ken Brown
Defendant
Mike Cook
Defendant
County of El Dorado
Defendant
Jeff Dreyer
Defendant
Howard Jenks
Defendant
Brian Keefe
Defendant
Glen Klages
Defendant
Joe Lenseigne
Defendant
Tom Murdock
Defendant
Jeff Neiman
Defendant
John Nolan
Defendant
Artemis Papadakis
Defendant
Ray Rodriguez
Defendant
Geoffrey A. Schafer
Plaintiff
Mike Sylvestri
Defendant
Gordon Taylor
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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GEOFFREY A. SCHAFER, No. 2:06-cv-1259-MCE-DAD

Plaintiff,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

BOB ASHWORTH, COUNTY OF EL

DORADO, JOE BROCK, BRIAN

KEEFE, GLEN KLAGES, JOE

LENSEIGNE, JEFF NEIMAN, JOHN

NOLAN, ARTEMIS PAPADAKIS, RAY

RODRIGUEZ, GORDON TAYLOR, MIKE

COOK, JEFF DREYER, HOWARD

JENKS, TOM MURDOCK, MIKE

SYLVESTRI, TOM BECKER, KEN

BROWN, DOES 1 THROUGH 20,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

Through the present motion, Plaintiff Geoffrey A. Schafer

(“Plaintiff”) seeks to modify the Court’s June 21, 2007 Amended

Pretrial Scheduling Order in this case by extending the time in

which the parties may complete discovery.

///

Case 2:06-cv-01259-MCE -DAD Document 60 Filed 12/12/07 Page 1 of 6
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

 Because oral argument will not be of material assistance, 1

the Court orders this matter submitted on the briefs. E.D. Cal.

Local Rule 78-230(h).

2

For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s Motion will be

GRANTED.1

BACKGROUND

On September 28, 2001, law enforcement officers from the

United States Drug Enforcement Agency, the California Bureau of

Narcotics, and the El Dorado County Sheriff, executed a valid

search warrant on Plaintiff’s home. According to the Complaint,

both Plaintiff, then fourteen years old, and his mother

cooperated with the officers. Plaintiff contends that despite

their cooperation, the officers pointed guns at them and kept

them detained in handcuffs for approximately three hours. 

Plaintiff alleges that he was severely traumatized by these

events, and he timely commenced the present action about a year

after he turned eighteen on June 10, 2005.

Plaintiff filed his complaint on June 8, 2006, naming Does

1-20 as fictitious defendants. Plaintiff claims he was ignorant

of the true names of officers who participated in the

aforementioned September 28, 2001 raid at the time his lawsuit

was instituted. On June 6, 2007, however, after ascertaining the

identity of sixteen such officers through discovery responses, he

filed a Motion to Amend to include those officers as additional

defendants in this litigation. That Motion was granted by the

Court on August 21, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-01259-MCE -DAD Document 60 Filed 12/12/07 Page 2 of 6
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

Inasmuch as attorney Franklin Gumpert already represented

the County of El Dorado and El Dorado County Deputy Sheriff Bob

Ashworth, Mr. Gumpert accepted service on behalf of the six

additional El Dorado County officers newly named as Defendants

and filed an answer on their behalf on October 12, 2007. 

Assistant United States Attorney Yoshinori H.T. Himel did not

agree to waive service on behalf of the nine federal defendants

until October 30, 2007. In addition, Mr. Himel indicated he would

not be filing a responsive pleading for sixty days pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(a)(3)(B), which allows

additional time for an individually named federal defendant to

appear. Finally, with respect to Ken Brown, the one stateaffiliated additional Defendant, Deputy Attorney General Alberto

Gonzalez has agreed to file a responsive pleading on Defendant

Brown’s behalf by December 17, 2007. 

Plaintiff filed the present Motion to Modify the Amended

Pretrial Scheduling Order because the Order specifies a discovery

cutoff of December 18, 2007 which will not permit meaningful

discovery from the newly-named Defendants. Although attorney

Himel indicated he would not oppose a discovery extension,

counsel for the El Dorado County and State of California

defendants refused to stipulate to the extension.

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 2:06-cv-01259-MCE -DAD Document 60 Filed 12/12/07 Page 3 of 6
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

 Unless otherwise stated, all references to “Rule” or 2

“Rules” refer to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

4

STANDARD

Once a district court has filed a pretrial scheduling order

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16, that Rule’s 2

standards control. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975

F.2d 604, 607-08 (9th Cir. 1992). Prior to the final pretrial

conference, which the Court has set for June 20, 2008, a court

may modify a status order upon a showing of “good cause.” See

Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b).

 “Unlike Rule 15(a)’s liberal amendment policy which focuses

on the bad faith of the party seeking to interpose an amendment

and the prejudice to the opposing party, Rule 16(b)’s ‘good

cause’ standard primarily considers the diligence of the party

seeking the amendment.” Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. In explaining

this standard, the Ninth Circuit has stated that:

[a] district court may modify the pretrial schedule ‘if

it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of

the party seeking the extension.’ Moreover,

carelessness is not compatible with a finding of

diligence and offers no reason for granting of relief. 

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. If that party was not diligent, the

inquiry should end.

Id. (citations omitted).

///

///

///

///

Case 2:06-cv-01259-MCE -DAD Document 60 Filed 12/12/07 Page 4 of 6
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

ANALYSIS

Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint on August 21,

2007, the same day he was permitted to do so by Court order. He

initiated attempt to serve all sixteen additional defendants

within approximately thirty days. There is no evidence that

Plaintiff has been anything less than diligent in that regard.

Given the fact that the current discovery deadline expired

less than four months after Plaintiff was permitted to add

sixteen new defendants to this lawsuit, and recognizing that said

four-month period necessarily encompassed the time both to locate

the defendants and effectuate service, maintaining the current

discovery cutoff of December 18, 2007 is insufficient to permit

meaningful discovery involving the new defendants. Good cause

has accordingly been demonstrated for an extension of the

discovery deadline beyond December 18, 2007.

While Plaintiff has requested an extension of discovery 

until four months after a ruling has been made on the Federal

Defendant’s anticipated Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss, adopting 

that suggestion would result in a virtually open-ended discovery

deadline without any firm date for scheduling purposes. 

Consequently the Court will instead extend the discovery deadline

for a period of six (6) months.

///

///

/// 

///

///

Case 2:06-cv-01259-MCE -DAD Document 60 Filed 12/12/07 Page 5 of 6
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

6

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s Motion to Modify the

Amended Pretrial Scheduling Order is GRANTED. The discovery

deadline is hereby extended to June 18, 2008. A Second Amended

Pretrial Scheduling Order will be forthcoming in which the dates,

including the dates for the Final Pretrial Conference and trial

itself, will be adjusted accordingly.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 11, 2007

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-01259-MCE -DAD Document 60 Filed 12/12/07 Page 6 of 6