O'Neel v. City of Folsom ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ----oo0oo---- 11 12 FAUN O’NEEL, individually and as No. 2:21-cv-02403 WBS DB Guardian Ad Litem for her 13 children B.T., A.O., D.O., and A.T., 14 ORDER Plaintiffs, 15 v. 16 CITY OF FOLSOM, a public entity; 17 SPENSER HEICHLINGER, an individual; MELANIE CATANIO, an 18 individual; LOU WRIGHT, an individual; DOE CITY OF FOLSOM 19 DEFENDANTS, individuals; KERYN STARKS, an individual; SASHA 20 SMITH, an individual; COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, a public entity; DOE 21 DCFAS DEFENDANTS, individuals; and DOES 1 through 10, 22 inclusive, 23 Defendants. 24 25 ----oo0oo---- 26 Defendant County of Sacramento (“defendant”) filed an 27 ex parte application to extend discovery and trial deadlines. 28 (Appl. (Docket No. 53).) Plaintiffs opposed. (Opp’n (Docket No. 1 54).) 2 On September 5, 2023, plaintiffs filed their Third 3 Amended Complaint (“TAC”). (Docket No. 49.) The TAC adds two 4 defendants1, three judicial deception & continued detention 5 claims, and new allegations for damages. (Id.; Appl. Mem. 6 (Docket No. 53-1) at 2-4.) Defendant seeks a 90-day extension to 7 discovery and trial-related deadlines to conduct discovery 8 relating to these additions. Plaintiffs argue that this is not 9 an earnest request because fact discovery has now been open for 10 over a year, but none of the defendants have made any discovery 11 requests or attempted to depose any witnesses. (Opp’n at 2.) 12 Plaintiffs further allege that they would be prejudiced by an 13 extension because it would add to their legal expenses. (Id. at 14 5.) 15 Parties conferred, unsuccessfully, about a stipulated 16 agreement for extending deadlines. Plaintiffs offered defendant 17 a 30-day extension of all pre-trial dates, but only if all 18 defendants would stipulate that expert testimony on the issue of 19 exigency/warrantless removals “do[es] not apply.” (Appl. Mem. at 20 4.) That offer was apparently declined, and defendant’s instant 21 ex parte application is the result. 22 A party seeking to modify a scheduling order must make 23 a showing of good cause, a standard which focuses on the 24 diligence of the moving party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); Johnson 25 v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 915 F.2d 604, 608-09 (9th Cir. 26 1992). Plaintiffs’ recent filing of the TAC and defendant’s 27 1 One of the new defendants, Sasha Smith, is now 28 represented by the County of Sacramento. (Appl. Mem. at 4.) 1 reasonable diligence in seeking an extension shortly thereafter 2 provide sufficient good cause to modify the scheduling order. 3 Further, while the court takes note of plaintiffs’ charge that no 4 defendant has undertaken any discovery up to this point, 5 plaintiffs fail to demonstrate any concrete, overriding prejudice 6 they would suffer from any extension. Accordingly, the court 7 will extend discovery and trial-related deadlines by 60 days, 8 with adjustments as necessary to account for weekends, holidays, 9 and the court’s availability for pretrial conference and trial. 10 IT IS THEEREFORE ORDERED that the Stipulated Request to 11 Continue Pre-Trial Deadlines Order (Docket No. 46) and Status 12 (Pretrial Scheduling) Order (Docket No. 34) be, and the same 13 hereby are, MODIFIED as follows: 14 Deadline Existing As Modified 15 Disclosure of experts and September 28, November 27, 2023 16 production of Fed. R. 2023 17 Civ. P. 26(a)(2) reports 18 Disclosure of rebuttal October 16, 2023 December 15, 2023 19 experts and production of 20 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) 21 reports 22 Completion of all November 22, 2023 January 19, 2024 23 discovery, including 24 depositions for 25 preservation of 26 testimony; all discovery 27 motions 28 nnn nnn ene en een ee nn NE OE EO Deadline Existing As Modified 2 All motions, except December 15, 2023 February 13, 2024 3 motions for continuances, 4 temporary restraining 5 orders, or other 6 emergency applications 7 Final pretrial conference | February 26, May 6, 2024, at 8 2024, at 1:30 1:30 p.m. in 9 p.m. in Courtroom | Courtroom No. 5 10 No. 5 11 Jury trial April 23, 2024 June 25, 2024, at 12 9:00 a.m. at 13 Courtroom No. 5 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 16 eh Llaaw~ th. é.b-~-— 7 Dated: September 28, 2023 WILLIAM B. SHUBB UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28