Johnson v. California Forensic Medical Group, Inc. ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 RANDALL SCOTT JOHNSON, DECEASED, No. 2:19-cv-01722 JAM by and through his Successor in 11 Interest, KATHERINE JOHNSON, KATHERINE JOHNSON, individually, 12 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S Plaintiff, MOTION TO REOPEN DISCOVERY 13 AND SCHEDULE TRIAL DATE AND v. RELATED DEADLINES/HEARINGS 14 SHASTA COUNTY, a public entity; 15 CALIFORNIA FORENSIC MEDICAL GROUP, INC., a California 16 Corporation, et al., 17 Defendants. 18 Plaintiff comes now before the Court seeking to reopen 19 discovery.1 See Mot. to Modify Scheduling Order (“Mot.”), ECF 20 No. 137. Defendants oppose the motion. Opp’n, ECF No. 150. 21 Plaintiff replied. Reply, ECF No. 151. For the reasons set 22 forth below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to reopen 23 discovery.2 24 1 Plaintiff’s motion to modify scheduling order and to compel 25 financial condition discovery, filed after the close of discovery, shall be construed by the Court as a motion to reopen 26 discovery. 27 2 This motion was determined to be suitable for decision without oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). The hearing was 28 scheduled for November 1, 2022. 1 I. BACKGROUND 2 This action involves the death of Randall Johnson while 3 detained at the Shasta County Jail. Decedent Johnson was 4 arrested for public intoxication in violation of California Penal 5 Code Section 647(f) on August 14, 2018 and he was found dead in 6 his cell not two days later. Plaintiff alleges Defendants failed 7 to provide adequate medical care to Decedent Johnson in violation 8 of his civil rights. 9 On November 26, 2019, the Court issued a scheduling order 10 setting among others the following deadlines: 1) discovery cut- 11 off by April 23, 2021; 2) disclosure of expert witnesses due by 12 February 19, 2021; and 3) jury trial set for August 30, 2021. 13 See Pre-Trial Scheduling Order, ECF No. 16. Following multiple 14 extensions, the Court ultimately ordered that fact discovery be 15 completed no later than January 31, 2022 (ECF No. 74), that 16 expert discovery and disclosure be completed no later than 17 July 28, 2022 (ECF No. 124), and that jury trial be set for 18 October 3, 2022 (ECF No. 91). 19 The Court vacated its jury trial date upon notice of Shasta 20 County Defendants’ interlocutory appeal. ECF No. 128. Shasta 21 County Defendants have since then been dismissed from this suit 22 with prejudice following their settlement agreement with 23 Plaintiff. See Order Dismissing County Defendants, ECF No. 149. 24 After the deadline for expert discovery and disclosure 25 passed, Plaintiff moved to reopen discovery and to compel the 26 remaining Defendants, including California Forensic Medical 27 Group, Inc. (“CFMG”), to supplement its financial condition 28 discovery. Mot. at 11. This is the matter now before the Court. 1 II. OPINION 2 A. Legal Standard 3 A party may seek to modify a case management schedule upon a 4 showing of good cause and by leave of the district judge. Fed. 5 R. Civ. P. 16(b). The good cause standard primarily considers 6 the diligence of the party seeking the amendment. Johnson v. 7 Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). 8 The party moving for an amendment should demonstrate that the 9 deadlines set in the scheduling order have become unworkable 10 despite the party’s diligent efforts to comply with the schedule 11 and that the party has been diligent in seeking amendment when an 12 extension became necessary. Perkins v. Contra Costa County 13 Sheriff's Dep't J-Team, No. C 07-02013 CW, 2010 WL 539260, at *2 14 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 9, 2010) (citing Jackson v. Laureate, Inc., 186 15 F.R.D. 605, 608 (E.D. Cal. 1999)). 16 Courts consider the following factors when deciding whether 17 to reopen discovery: (1) whether trial is imminent; (2) whether 18 the request is opposed; (3) whether the non-moving party would be 19 prejudiced; (4) whether the moving party was diligent in 20 obtaining discovery; (5) the foreseeability of the need for 21 additional discovery in light of the time allowed for discovery 22 by the district court; and (6) the likelihood that the discovery 23 will lead to relevant evidence. United States ex. rel. Schumer 24 v. Hughes Aircraft Co., 63 F.3d 1512, 1526 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. 25 granted in part, 519 U.S. 926, vacated on other grounds, 520 U.S. 26 939 (1997). The decision to reopen discovery rests in the sound 27 discretion of the Court. Id. 28 /// 1 B. Discussion 2 The Court finds that Plaintiff has been diligent in seeking 3 amendment to the Court’s scheduling order when extensions become 4 necessary. Upon the parties’ stipulations, the Court has 5 granted multiple extensions for CMFG Defendants to provide 6 financial information and produce financial condition witnesses 7 for deposition. See Orders Granting Extensions, ECF Nos. 21, 8 58, 107, and 124. Even after the most recent deadline, the 9 parties continued to meet and confer over financial condition 10 discovery. Mot. at 5. The parties also had a discovery 11 conference with Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on August 25, 12 2022. Id. It was only when the parties could not reach a 13 stipulation for further extension of time that Plaintiff filed 14 this present motion to modify the Court’s scheduling order. Id. 15 The record before the Court thus demonstrates that Plaintiff has 16 diligently pursued extensions when the need arose. 17 The Court further finds that the other factors for good 18 cause under Rule 16(b) also support reopening discovery. For 19 one, trial is not imminent, because a new trial date has yet to 20 be set. It follows that Defendants are unlikely to be prejudiced 21 by the reopening of discovery. Moreover, Defendants themselves 22 have agreed to produce additional financial discovery in their 23 opposition briefing. Opp’n at 4 (agreeing to provide (1) an 24 organizational chart of Defendant Wellpath’s tax-reporting 25 entities; (2) tax returns for Wellpath LLC in 2019, 2020, and 26 2021; (3) tax returns for Wellpath Group Holdings, LLC for 2018; 27 (4) unredacted tax returns for Jessamine Healthcare, Inc. for 28 2018, 2019, and 2020; and 5) previously withheld attachments and 1 schedules to IRS Form 1120 for CCS-CMGC Intermediate Holdings 2, 2 Inc. for 2018, 2019, 2020, and 2021.) 3 As to the remaining factors, the Court finds it is 4 foreseeable that additional discovery would be needed following 5 CFMG’s latest round of financial disclosures in July: Defendants 6 served some 304 pages of financial documents that Plaintiff 7 contends were so incomplete and inconsistent that “it is 8 impossible to determine Defendants’ financial condition, as is 9 required for Plaintiff’s punitive damages claims.” Mot. at 6, 10 citing Decl. of Annette Stalker, ECF No. 144. Plaintiff also 11 alleges that Defendants provided incomplete financial information 12 from 2018 to present, including incomplete and/or redacted tax 13 returns for CFMG and its parent companies, Wellpath LLC and 14 Wellpath Management, Inc. Mot. at 4. It is thus likely that 15 reopening discovery will lead to the discovery of relevant 16 evidence. 17 C. Request to Disclose an Expert Witness 18 In addition to moving to reopen discovery, Plaintiff seeks 19 leave to disclose an expert witness on Defendants’ financial 20 condition. Mot. at 6. Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s request 21 should be denied because “it is improper for a party to use 22 expert testimony to assist in the awarding [of] punitive damages 23 since this task rests exclusively within the discretion of the 24 jury.” Opp’n at 6-7. Defendants’ cited authority, however, do 25 not bar the admittance of an expert to aid the jury in its task. 26 See, e.g., Pacific Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Haslip, 499 U.S. 1 27 (1991) (discussing punitive damages and juries, but not expert 28 witnesses). And, though Defendants have provided persuasive 1 authority that certain expert testimony may be inadmissible if it 2 seeks to prescribe methods of calculating damages or if it 3 proposes a range of damages to the jury, Defendants have not 4 cited any binding authority from this District. Opp’n at 12, 5 citing Voilas v. GMC, 73 F.Supp.2d 452, 464 (D. N.J. 1999). Even 6 if such authority were before the Court, however, the Court would 7 decline to preemptively rule on the admissibility of Plaintiff’s 8 expert testimony before an expert has even been designated. As 9 such, upon the reopening of discovery, Plaintiff may designate an 10 expert witness in compliance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26. 11 III. ORDER 12 For the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS 13 Plaintiff’s Motion to Reopen Discovery. Defendants shall 14 produce, if they have not already, all documents enumerated in 15 their opposition briefing under the section heading, “Additional 16 Production by the Wellpath Defendants.” Opp’n at 4-5. To the 17 extent that Defendants’ production does not satisfy Plaintiff’s 18 requested relief, Plaintiff may seek additional discovery in a 19 future motion brought before the assigned Magistrate Judge. 20 Further, the following deadlines are set: 21 1. Expert disclosures concerning Defendants’ financial 22 condition shall be completed by January 20, 2023; 23 2. Rebuttal expert disclosures concerning Defendants’ 24 financial condition shall be completed by February 6, 2023; 25 3. Close of expert discovery concerning Defendants’ 26 financial condition shall be March 31, 2023; 27 4. Final Pretrial Conference shall be set for May 12, 28 2023, at 10:00 a.m.; and nen ne nnn non nnn nnn en ne nnn nn nn nee nn nn I IN 1 5. Jury Trial shall be set for June 26, 2023, at 9:00 a.m. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 Dated: December 6, 2022 iA Dt JOHN A. MENDEZ 6 SENIOR UNITED*STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28