Barajas Centeno v. City of Carlsbad

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JOSE LUIS BARAJAS CENTENO, Case No.: 3:19-cv-02098-L-DEB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. MOTIONS: CITY OF CARLSBAD; JORDAN WALKER; and DOES 1 through 10, (1) FOR TIME TO CONDUCT 15 DISCOVERY [DKT. NO. 66-1]; Defendants. AND 17 (2) TO COMPEL DEFENDANTS TO PAY EXPERT 18 DEPOSITION COSTS [DKT.

NO. 73]

22 Before Court are two motions by Plaintiff: (1) a Motion for Time to Conduct Discovery, which was mis-filed as an attachment to Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions Against Defendants and Defendants’ Counsel, Dkt. No. 66-2; and (2) a Motion for Order to Compel Defendants to Pay Expert’s Deposition, Transcripts, and Spanish/English Translators and Expert’s Travel Time. Dkt. No. 73.1 Defendants oppose both motions. Dkt. Nos. 68, 85.

I. Motion for Additional Time to Conduct Discovery The deadline for completion of fact discovery passed on July 31, 2020. Dkt.

No. 33. Plaintiff now requests the Court extend it by ninety days so he may conduct discovery regarding whether Defendants altered video footage of the subject incident prior to producing it on May 28, 2020. Dkt. No. 66-1. He does not explain what discovery he would take if granted the additional time.

Plaintiff has already conducted some discovery on this issue. On June 10, 2020, he propounded discovery requesting that Defendants identify the individual(s) who altered the video recordings and produce chain of custody documents for them. Id. at 5-6, ¶23, Ex. K, L. Defendants’ responses denied the videos were altered and Defendants produced the chain of custody documentation. Id. at 6, ¶¶24, 25, Ex. M, N. Plaintiff did not propound any additional discovery and his present motion requesting relief from the fact discovery deadline was filed more than two months after the deadline passed.

16 Plaintiff has not shown good cause, as required under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b), to reopen fact discovery at this late date. Plaintiff fails to identify the additional discovery he seeks and provides no explanation for why he waited until October to seek relief from a deadline that passed in July. The Court, therefore, denies this Motion. See Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992) (“Rule 16(b)' s “good cause” standard primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment…. If the party was not diligent, the inquiry should end.”)

23 II. Motion to Compel Defendants to Pay Expert Deposition Costs 24 Plaintiff filed his Motion to Compel Defendants to bear the costs associated with deposing Defendants’ sole expert witness, Phillip Sanchez, on November 21, which is set for hearing on January 11, 2021 at 9:30 a.m., at the same time as the hearing on the Order to Show Cause Directed to Plaintiff’s Counsel Genaro Lara. Dkt. , |2020. Dkt. No. 73. Plaintiff has not noticed Chief Sanchez’s deposition and the |[deadline to take expert discovery passed on November 23, 2020. Dkt. No. 33.

3 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel, therefore, is moot.

A Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff's Motions are DENIED.

5 IT IS SO ORDERED.

6 ||Dated: December 22, 2020 _ . oPaDobon 8 Daniel E. Butcher 9 United States Magistrate Judge