Pedersen v. Corizon Health Incorporated ( 2022 )

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Darren Robert Pedersen, No. CV-18-00513-TUC-JCH 10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. 12 Corizon Health Incorporated, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 Before the Court are two related motions: (1) Plaintiff Darren Robert Pedersen 16 ("Plaintiff") and Defendant Corizon Health, Inc.'s ("Corizon") Joint Motion to Reopen 17 Additional Discovery and Extend Discovery ("Motion II"), filed on November 22, 2022 18 (Doc. 187); and (2) Corizon's Motion to Reopen Discovery for Limited Purpose 19 ("Motion I"), filed on October 24, 2022 (Doc. 181).1 For the following reasons, the Court 20 grants Motion II and denies Motion I. 21 I. Background 22 Seeking discovery that he was unable to secure as an incarcerated pro se party, 23 Plaintiff filed a motion to reopen discovery, (see Doc. 157), which the Court granted in 24 part and denied in part (Doc. 180). The Court provided Plaintiff leave to conduct four 25 depositions, to propound a request for production for litigation documents with certain 26 conditions, and to obtain certain financial records from Corizon. (Doc. 180 at 9–10.) 27 Plaintiff's remaining requests were denied. (Id.) 28 1 Plaintiff did not respond to or otherwise object to Motion I. 1 Three weeks later, Corizon filed Motion I seeking limited discovery. (Doc. 181.) 2 Motion I argues that because "Plaintiff will be engaging in additional discovery, such as 3 document retrieval and depositions of various fact witnesses" the "need for additional 4 discovery on Corizon's end…" is warranted. (Id. at 3.) In Motion I, Corizon request leave 5 to (1) depose Plaintiff; (2) retain and disclose expert witnesses; and (3) conduct an 6 Independent Medical Examination ("IME") on Plaintiff. (See id.) 7 In the interim, the parties jointly filed Motion II, apparently reaching consensus on 8 several items requested by Corizon in Motion I. (Doc. 187.) Both motions implicitly seek 9 to reopen discovery. 10 I. Legal Standard 11 A scheduling order may be modified only for good cause and with the judge's 12 consent. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). Courts consider several factors when deciding whether a 13 party has shown "good cause" to reopen discovery, see, e.g., City of Pomona v. SQM N. 14 Am. Corp., 866 F.3d 1060, 1066 (9th Cir. 2017) (listing factors),2 but the primary 15 consideration is whether the moving party was diligent in its attempts to complete 16 discovery in a timely manner, see Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 17 609 (9th Cir. 1992) ("Rule 16(b)' s 'good cause' standard primarily considers the diligence 18 of the party seeking the amendment."). If the moving party was not diligent, the inquiry 19 should end, and the request should be denied. Id. 20 II. Analysis 21 A. Motion II 22 In Motion II, the parties seek the following: (1) allow Corizon to depose Plaintiff; 23 (2) allow Corizon to conduct an independent medical examination on Plaintiff; (3) allow 24 Plaintiff to depose his new medical provider; and (4) extend the limited discovery deadline 25 from January 27, 2023, to March 24, 2023. (See Doc. 187.) The additional discovery, 26 2 Factors the Court is to consider include: (1) whether trial is imminent, (2) whether the request is opposed, (3) whether the non-moving party would be prejudiced, (4) whether the 27 moving party was diligent in obtaining discovery within the guidelines established by the court, (5) the foreseeability of the need for additional discovery in light of the time allowed 28 for discovery by the district court, and 6) the likelihood that the discovery will lead to relevant evidence. City of Pomona, 866 F.3d at 1066. 1 according to the parties, "will streamline trial and facilitate further settlement discussions." 2 (Id.) 3 Most of the Pomona factors support the additional discovery requested in Motion II. 4 Although this case has been pending since 2018, no trial date has been set in this action 5 and as noted above, limited discovery has already been granted. (See Doc. 180 at 4.) The 6 parties jointly filed Motion II and there is no indication that either side will be prejudiced. 7 Because the requested discovery will aid in trial preparation and resolving this case on the 8 merits, Motion II is granted. 9 B. Motion I 10 Because the Court has provided Corizon leave to depose Plaintiff and conduct an 11 Independent Medical Examination, these requests are denied as moot. Corizon's remaining 12 request, to retain and disclose expert witnesses, is also denied for the following reasons. 13 Corizon argues that "[e]xpert opinions [are] relevant as to Corizon's defenses and 14 will [] aide a trier of fact as to the technical and medical aspects of Plaintiff's claims." 15 (Doc. 181 at 3.) Corizon fails to adequately describe the topics on which the experts would 16 opine or describe why this evidence is needed to explain Plaintiff's care regarding his 17 seizure disorder. For example, Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claim alleges that Corizon 18 failed to follow specialists' recommendations and its own providers' request for outside 19 consultations. (See Doc. 141 at 36.) It's unclear what "technical or medical aspects" will be 20 clarified by an expert witness that could not be elicited from Corizon's fact witnesses and 21 healthcare providers. Denying Corizon's request for expert opinions is not prejudicial given 22 that Plaintiff did not request any expert opinions in his motion to reopen discovery. Further, 23 granting expert discovery, at this stage where only limited discovery has been allowed, will 24 effectively reopen the entire discovery process and cause further delay. Motion I is denied. 25 26 27 28 /// I. Order 2 Accordingly, 3 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE Corizon's Motion to Reopen Discovery for Limited Purpose (Doc. 181); 5 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED GRANTING the parties’ Joint Motion to Reopen 6 || Additional Discovery and Extend Discovery (Doc. 187). Limited discovery is reopened as 7\| follows: 8 1. Defendant Corizon Health, Inc. has leave to depose Plaintiff Darren Pedersen; 9 2. Corizon has leave to perform an independent medical examination on Plaintiff; 10 3. Plaintiff has leave to depose Plaintiffs current outside medical provider; and 11 4. The limited discovery previously granted by this Court, located at Docket 180, and 12 the limited discovery outlined above shall be completed no later than 13 March 27, 2023. Dated this 5th day of December, 2022. 15 16 □ 17 9S MH herb onorable John C. Hinderaker 18 United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -4-