Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00502/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00502-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Charter Communications, Inc.
Defendant
Eric W. Rund
Plaintiff

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----

ERIC W. RUND,

NO. CIV. S-05-0502 FCD GGH

Plaintiff,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,

Defendant.

----oo0oo----

This matter is before the court on defendant Charter

Communications, Inc.’s (“defendant”) motion to modify the

Pretrial Scheduling Order to re-open discovery so that defendant

may move to compel plaintiff to undergo a mental examination. 

Defendant seeks an extension of the discovery period because,

despite reasonable efforts, the parties were unable to reach an

agreement regarding a voluntary examination of plaintiff, and,

due to a scheduling error, defendant’s counsel was unable to

properly notice a motion to compel before the close of discovery. 

Case 2:05-cv-00502-FCD-GGH Document 34 Filed 11/13/06 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 this matter submitted on the briefs. 

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

2 At the time of the initial contact, defendant’s counsel

erroneously believed the discovery cutoff date was October 26,

2006. Actually, the date was October 16, 2006. (PSO, filed

October 25, 2005, at 2.)

2

Plaintiff opposes defendant’s motion.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.

Defendant maintains an extension should be granted because

it made a good faith effort to resolve the issue of plaintiff’s

mental examination before the close of discovery. Defendant’s

counsel first contacted plaintiff’s counsel on September 26, 2006

and requested that plaintiff stipulate to a mental examination.2

Plaintiff’s counsel responded by letter on September 29, 2006,

and the attorneys conferred via telephone on October 2, 2006. No

agreement was reached, however. Defendant’s counsel contacted

plaintiff’s counsel again on October 5, 2006, seeking to resolve

the issue. On October 9, 2006, after receiving no further

Case 2:05-cv-00502-FCD-GGH Document 34 Filed 11/13/06 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 Pursuant to Eastern District Local Rule 72-302(c)(1),

said motions are heard by the assigned magistrate judge.

3

response from plaintiff’s counsel, defendant’s counsel informed

plaintiff of his intention to file an ex parte application to

compel plaintiff’s mental examination. Defendant filed the ex

parte application on October 10, 2006. On October 13, 2006, the

court denied said application without prejudice for failure to

comply with Eastern District Local Rule 37-251 (requiring at

least twenty-one days notice to hear motions regarding discovery

disagreements). Discovery thereafter closed on October 16, 2006. 

Plaintiff argues that defendant cannot compel him to submit

to a mental examination because his emotional distress claims are

“garden variety,” and therefore plaintiff’s mental condition is

not “in controversy” as required for the court to compel

psychiatric evaluation. However, the merits of defendant’s

motion to compel are not before the court at this time. The

court’s inquiry here is limited to whether defendant has

demonstrated good cause for a limited extension of discovery. In

that regard, defendant’s counsel diligently attempted to meet and

confer with opposing counsel on the issue of plaintiff’s mental

examination before the close of discovery. When that process

failed, defendant tried to have the matter heard by the court ex

parte before the discovery cutoff. The court finds that such

conduct demonstrates good cause, warranting an extension of

discovery to permit defendant to bring a motion to compel

plaintiff’s mental examination.3

/////

/////

Case 2:05-cv-00502-FCD-GGH Document 34 Filed 11/13/06 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

CONCLUSION

1. Defendant’s motion to reopen discovery for a limited

purpose is GRANTED and the Pretrial Scheduling Order of 

October 26, 2005 is modified as follows:

a. The discovery cutoff is extended to 

January 31, 2007 for the limited purpose of

allowing defendant to properly notice and have

heard its motion to compel plaintiff’s mental

examination.

2. All other dates set forth in the Pretrial Scheduling

Order shall remain unchanged.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 13, 2006

Case 2:05-cv-00502-FCD-GGH Document 34 Filed 11/13/06 Page 4 of 4