(PS) Iliya v. County of Sacramento ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAUDA ILIYA, No. 2:22-cv-1305-KJM-KJN PS 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. (ECF No. 25.) 14 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Presently before the court is plaintiff’s second motion for an extension of time on the 18 discovery deadlines in this case.1 (ECF No. 25.) Defendants oppose further extensions, and 19 plaintiff supplemented his arguments in a reply brief. (ECF Nos. 27, 28.) 20 For the reasons that follow, plaintiff’s request is denied. Thus, fact discovery is now 21 closed, and the parties shall proceed to the next phases of the case, as defined by the January 2023 22 pretrial scheduling order and as supplemented by the court’s September 15, 2023 minute order. 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 28 1 This case was referred to the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21). 1 Background 2 Plaintiff has brought this suit against defendants County of Sacramento; Anne Marie 3 Schubert (official capacity only); Scott R. Jones (official capacity only); and Matthew McCune 4 (in his individual and official capacity), plus 50 doe defendants. He asserts claims under 42 5 U.S.C. § 1983 for false arrest, malicious prosecution, and Monell, plus one state law claim, all 6 relating to his arrest for allegedly receiving stolen property in 2020. (ECF No. 11.) Defendants 7 deny these claims. (ECF No. 14.) 8 The court held a scheduling hearing on January 31, 2023 and issued a scheduling order the 9 following day. (ECF Nos. 17, 18.) The scheduling order stated that fact discovery needed to be 10 completed by September 13, 2023; that expert designations be filed by November 13, 2023 (with 11 rebuttal experts due December 13, 2023), that expert discovery be completed by February 12, 12 2024, and that law and motion be completed (i.e. heard) by April 9, 2024. (ECF No. 18.) The 13 court defined “completed” as meaning: “(1) all discovery shall have been conducted so that all 14 depositions have been taken and (2) any disputes related to discovery shall have been resolved by 15 appropriate order if necessary and, where discovery has been ordered, the order has been 16 complied with.” (Id.) 17 In August, plaintiff hand delivered to defense counsel’s office his requests for police 18 records; defendants responded to these requests. (See ECF No. 27-1 at ¶¶ 4, 5.) On September 6, 19 plaintiff requested an extension of time to complete discovery, citing among other things his 20 financial hardship and multiple deaths in his family. (ECF No. 20.) The court ordered a response 21 from defendants, who did not oppose a five month extension but indicated they would oppose 22 future requests without a showing of diligence on plaintiff’s part. (ECF No. 22.) Given this, the 23 court ordered that fact discovery was to be completed by February 13, 2024, expert witness be 24 designated by April 12, 2024, rebuttal expert be disclosed by May 13, 2024, expert discovery be 25 completed by July 12, 2024, and law and motion be filed by August 6, 2024 and completed (i.e. 26 heard) by September 10, 2024. (ECF No. 23.) The court also stated that “[f]urther extensions of 27 time are unlikely to be granted without a showing of diligence on the part of plaintiff in moving 28 his case forward.” (Id.) 1 On February 13, 2024, plaintiff filed his second request for an extension of time. Therein, 2 plaintiff noted his previous financial issues had resolved, but he still needed more time to conduct 3 discovery. He stated he has “undergone strenuous effort with the intent to meet necessary 4 requirements for the advancement of the case,” although he does not say what those efforts are. 5 Plaintiff also lodges accusations that border on the conspiratorial, citing an alleged robbery and a 6 police encounter that he contends was directed by defendants. Plaintiff requests a 3 month 7 extension of all deadlines. (ECF No. 25.) 8 Defendants oppose any further extensions, arguing a lack of good cause and lack of 9 diligence on plaintiff’s part. Counsel noted their previous production of responsive documents in 10 the fall of 2023, as well as their propounding of discovery on plaintiff before that time. Counsel 11 asserted that between September 14 and February 12, plaintiff served no additional discovery on 12 any defendant. Instead, on February 12, 2024, plaintiff emailed defense counsel’s office 13 requesting they stipulate to another extension of time; defense counsel replied and declined. On 14 February 13—the day fact discovery closed—plaintiff emailed two documents that defense 15 counsel asserts “purported to be interrogatories and requests for production of documents.” 16 However, counsel noted these documents were directed at the City of Sunnyvale and other 17 Sunnyvale individuals who are not parties to this case. Counsel asserts defendants have multiple 18 objections to plaintiff’s documents, and resolution of these requests would require “substantial 19 meet and confer efforts between the parties in order to generate appropriate responses.” Finally, 20 defendants deny the conspiratorial aspects of plaintiff’s brief. (See ECF Nos. 27 and 27-1.) 21 Plaintiff filed a reply brief indicating he attempted to secure counsel in this matter but 22 could not. Plaintiff also argues the merits of his case, provides more details about the robbery and 23 the other police encounter in the City of Newark (which he connects to defendants in a 24 conclusory manner), and appears to attempt to assert a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1986 (though no 25 such claim exists in his complaint). Plaintiff otherwise reasserts arguments made in his moving 26 brief. Despite all this, plaintiff asserts no additional facts to indicate he served any discovery 27 beyond what has been indicated above. (ECF No. 28.) 28 /// 1 Legal Standard 2 “District courts have broad discretion to manage discovery and to control the course of 3 litigation under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16.” Hunt v. County of Orange, 672 F.3d 606, 4 616 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). Rule 16 requires “a magistrate judge when authorized by 5 local rule [to] issue a scheduling order after receiving the parties’ report under Rule 26(f); or after 6 consulting with the parties’ attorneys and any unrepresented parties at a scheduling conference.” 7 Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(1)(A-B). The Rule also states “[a] schedule may be modified only for good 8 cause and with the judge's consent.” Rule 16(b)(4). 9 Rule 16(b)’s “good cause” standard primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking 10 the amendment—that the schedule “cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party 11 seeking the extension.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 12 1992). Relevant inquiries into diligence include: (1) whether the movant was diligent in helping 13 the court to create a workable Rule 16 order, (2) whether matters that were not, and could not 14 have been, foreseeable at the time of the scheduling conference caused the need for amendment, 15 and (3) whether the movant was diligent in seeking amendment once the need to amend became 16 apparent.” See United States ex rel. Terry v. Wasatch Advantage Grp., LLC, 327 F.R.D. 395, 17 404 (E.D. Cal. 2018). Additionally, the Ninth Circuit has noted: 18 [C]arelessness is not compatible with a finding of diligence and offers no reason for a grant of relief. Although the existence or 19 degree of prejudice to the party opposing the modification might supply additional reasons to deny a motion, the focus of the inquiry 20 is upon the moving party’s reasons for seeking modification. 21 Mammoth Recreations, 975 F.2d at 609 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 notes to 1983 amendment)); 22 see also 6A Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 1522.2 (3d ed.) (“[N]eglect or inadvertence will not 23 constitute good cause supporting modification.”). Thus, if the party seeking to amend the 24 scheduling order fails to show diligence, the inquiry should end and the court should not grant the 25 motion to modify. Zivkovic v.Southern California Edison, Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 26 2002); see also Rodriguez v. Beard, 2016 WL 6393755, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 28, 2016) (“The 27 Court has wide discretion to extend time, provided a party demonstrates some justification for the 28 issuance of the enlargement order.”) (citations omitted). 1 Analysis 2 Here, the undersigned finds that plaintiff has failed to demonstrate diligence. Based on 3 the record, it appears plaintiff has attempted to serve discovery on defendants only twice in this 4 case: first just weeks before the closure of the original fact deadline, and second on the day of the 5 extended fact deadline. Defendants responded to the first set of documents, but note the 6 considerable errors with plaintiff’s second set of documents. As stated in the original pretrial 7 scheduling order, completion of fact discovery does not just mean delivery of the documents to 8 the opposing party, but also resolution of any disputes. (See ECF No. 18 at 4, fn. 7.) Plaintiff’s 9 service of documents on the day discovery closes—directed at individuals and entities who are 10 not a party to the case—does not provide for such resolution. Further, plaintiff’s waiting until the 11 day before the deadline to request a stipulated extension with defendants does not meet the 12 diligence standard, nor does his motion before this court—filed on the day fact discovery closes. 13 Finally, plaintiff’s conspiratorial allegations are legally conclusory and do not warrant further 14 comment. 15 The court previously warned plaintiff that further extensions were unlikely to be granted 16 without a showing of diligence, and plaintiff’s moving brief and reply brief fail to show diligence. 17 Terry, LLC, 327 F.R.D. at 404. Instead, it appears the past five months went by without any 18 action by plaintiff to move his case forward, indicating carelessness; defendants would be 19 prejudiced by any further extension of the fact deadline, given their own diligence in defending 20 their case, the passage of time, and plaintiff’s inattention to serving his own discovery on 21 defendants. Mammoth Recreations, 975 F.2d at 609. Given this, the inquiry is at an end. 22 Zivkovic, 302 F.3d at 1087 (9th Cir. 2002). 23 ORDER 24 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 25 1. Plaintiff’s motion to for an extension of the discovery deadlines (ECF No. 25) is 26 DENIED; and 27 2. The other deadlines (see ECF No. 23) remain in effect, as follows: Expert Witness 28 Designations are due no later than 4/12/2024, and any rebuttal expert disclosures are due 1 no later than 5/13/24. All expert discovery shall be completed by 7/12/24. All law and 2 motion shall be filed by 8/6/2024 and completed (1.e. heard) by 9/10/24. Further 3 extensions of these deadlines are unlikely to be granted without a showing of diligence on 4 the part of plaintiff in moving his case forward. 5 | Dated: March 12, 2024 Card ht fa he 6 CAROLYN K DELANEY? 7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 iliy.1305 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28