Johnson v. California Forensic Medical Group, Inc.

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10 RANDALL SCOTT JOHNSON, DECEASED, No. 2:19-cv-01722 JAM by and through his Successor in 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 SHASTA COUNTY, a public entity; CALIFORNIA FORENSIC MEDICAL GROUP, INC., a California Corporation, et al., 17 Defendants.

Plaintiff comes now before the Court seeking to reopen discovery.1 See Mot. to Modify Scheduling Order (“Mot.”), ECF No. 137. Defendants oppose the motion. Opp’n, ECF No. 150.

Plaintiff replied. Reply, ECF No. 151. For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to reopen discovery.2 Plaintiff’s motion to modify scheduling order and to compel financial condition discovery, filed after the close of discovery, shall be construed by the Court as a motion to reopen 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 scheduled for November 1, 2022.

1 I. BACKGROUND 2 This action involves the death of Randall Johnson while detained at the Shasta County Jail. Decedent Johnson was arrested for public intoxication in violation of California Penal Code Section 647(f) on August 14, 2018 and he was found dead in his cell not two days later. Plaintiff alleges Defendants failed to provide adequate medical care to Decedent Johnson in violation of his civil rights.

9 On November 26, 2019, the Court issued a scheduling order setting among others the following deadlines: 1) discovery cut- off by April 23, 2021; 2) disclosure of expert witnesses due by February 19, 2021; and 3) jury trial set for August 30, 2021.

13 See Pre-Trial Scheduling Order, ECF No. 16. Following multiple extensions, the Court ultimately ordered that fact discovery be completed no later than January 31, 2022 (ECF No. 74), that expert discovery and disclosure be completed no later than July 28, 2022 (ECF No. 124), and that jury trial be set for October 3, 2022 (ECF No. 91).

19 The Court vacated its jury trial date upon notice of Shasta County Defendants’ interlocutory appeal. ECF No. 128. Shasta County Defendants have since then been dismissed from this suit with prejudice following their settlement agreement with Plaintiff. See Order Dismissing County Defendants, ECF No. 149.

24 After the deadline for expert discovery and disclosure passed, Plaintiff moved to reopen discovery and to compel the remaining Defendants, including California Forensic Medical Group, Inc. (“CFMG”), to supplement its financial condition 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 showing of good cause and by leave of the district judge. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b). The good cause standard primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992).

8 The party moving for an amendment should demonstrate that the deadlines set in the scheduling order have become unworkable despite the party’s diligent efforts to comply with the schedule and that the party has been diligent in seeking amendment when an extension became necessary. Perkins v. Contra Costa County Sheriff's Dep't J-Team, No. C 07-02013 CW, 2010 WL 539260, at *2 (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 to reopen discovery: (1) whether trial is imminent; (2) whether the request is opposed; (3) whether the non-moving party would be prejudiced; (4) whether the moving party was diligent in obtaining discovery; (5) the foreseeability of the need for additional discovery in light of the time allowed for discovery by the district court; and (6) the likelihood that the discovery will lead to relevant evidence. United States ex. rel. Schumer v. Hughes Aircraft Co., 63 F.3d 1512, 1526 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. 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 discretion of the Court. Id. /// 1 B. Discussion 2 The Court finds that Plaintiff has been diligent in seeking amendment to the Court’s scheduling order when extensions become necessary. Upon the parties’ stipulations, the Court has granted multiple extensions for CMFG Defendants to provide financial information and produce financial condition witnesses for deposition. See Orders Granting Extensions, ECF Nos. 21, 58, 107, and 124. Even after the most recent deadline, the parties continued to meet and confer over financial condition discovery. Mot. at 5. The parties also had a discovery conference with Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on August 25, 2022. Id. It was only when the parties could not reach a stipulation for further extension of time that Plaintiff filed this present motion to modify the Court’s scheduling order. Id. The record before the Court thus demonstrates that Plaintiff has diligently pursued extensions when the need arose.

17 The Court further finds that the other factors for good cause under Rule 16(b) also support reopening discovery. For one, trial is not imminent, because a new trial date has yet to be set. It follows that Defendants are unlikely to be prejudiced by the reopening of discovery. Moreover, Defendants themselves have agreed to produce additional financial discovery in their opposition briefing. Opp’n at 4 (agreeing to provide (1) an organizational chart of Defendant Wellpath’s tax-reporting entities; (2) tax returns for Wellpath LLC in 2019, 2020, and 2021; (3) tax returns for Wellpath Group Holdings, LLC for 2018; (4) unredacted tax returns for Jessamine Healthcare, Inc. for 2018, 2019, and 2020; and 5) previously withheld attachments and schedules to IRS Form 1120 for CCS-CMGC Intermediate Holdings 2, Inc. for 2018, 2019, 2020, and 2021.)

3 As to the remaining factors, the Court finds it is foreseeable that additional discovery would be needed following CFMG’s latest round of financial disclosures in July: Defendants served some 304 pages of financial documents that Plaintiff contends were so incomplete and inconsistent that “it is impossible to determine Defendants’ financial condition, as is required for Plaintiff’s punitive damages claims.” Mot. at 6, citing Decl. of Annette Stalker, ECF No. 144. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendants provided incomplete financial information from 2018 to present, including incomplete and/or redacted tax returns for CFMG and its parent companies, Wellpath LLC and Wellpath Management, Inc. Mot. at 4. It is thus likely that reopening discovery will lead to the discovery of relevant evidence.

17 C. Request to Disclose an Expert Witness 18 In addition to moving to reopen discovery, Plaintiff seeks leave to disclose an expert witness on Defendants’ financial condition. Mot. at 6. Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s request should be denied because “it is improper for a party to use expert testimony to assist in the awarding [of] punitive damages since this task rests exclusively within the discretion of the jury.” Opp’n at 6-7. Defendants’ cited authority, however, do 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 witnesses). And, though Defendants have provided persuasive authority that certain expert testimony may be inadmissible if it seeks to prescribe methods of calculating damages or if it proposes a range of damages to the jury, Defendants have not cited any binding authority from this District. Opp’n at 12, citing Voilas v. GMC, 73 F.Supp.2d 452, 464 (D. N.J. 1999). Even if such authority were before the Court, however, the Court would decline to preemptively rule on the admissibility of Plaintiff’s expert testimony before an expert has even been designated. As such, upon the reopening of discovery, Plaintiff may designate an expert witness in compliance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26.

11 III. ORDER 12 For the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Reopen Discovery. Defendants shall produce, if they have not already, all documents enumerated in their opposition briefing under the section heading, “Additional Production by the Wellpath Defendants.” Opp’n at 4-5. To the extent that Defendants’ production does not satisfy Plaintiff’s requested relief, Plaintiff may seek additional discovery in a future motion brought before the assigned Magistrate Judge.

20 Further, the following deadlines are set: 21 1. Expert disclosures concerning Defendants’ financial condition shall be completed by January 20, 2023; 23 2. Rebuttal expert disclosures concerning Defendants’ financial condition shall be completed by February 6, 2023; 25 3. Close of expert discovery concerning Defendants’ financial condition shall be March 31, 2023; 27 4. Final Pretrial Conference shall be set for May 12, 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