O'Neel v. City of Folsom

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ----oo0oo---- FAUN O’NEEL, individually and as No. 2:21-cv-02403 WBS DB Guardian Ad Litem for her children B.T., A.O., D.O., and A.T., 14 ORDER Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF FOLSOM, a public entity; SPENSER HEICHLINGER, an individual; MELANIE CATANIO, an individual; LOU WRIGHT, an individual; DOE CITY OF FOLSOM DEFENDANTS, individuals; KERYN STARKS, an individual; SASHA SMITH, an individual; COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, a public entity; DOE DCFAS DEFENDANTS, individuals; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, 23 Defendants.

25 ----oo0oo---- 26 Defendant County of Sacramento (“defendant”) filed an ex parte application to extend discovery and trial deadlines.

28 (Appl. (Docket No. 53).) Plaintiffs opposed. (Opp’n (Docket No. 54).)

2 On September 5, 2023, plaintiffs filed their Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”). (Docket No. 49.) The TAC adds two defendants1, three judicial deception & continued detention claims, and new allegations for damages. (Id.; Appl. Mem.

6 (Docket No. 53-1) at 2-4.) Defendant seeks a 90-day extension to discovery and trial-related deadlines to conduct discovery relating to these additions. Plaintiffs argue that this is not an earnest request because fact discovery has now been open for over a year, but none of the defendants have made any discovery requests or attempted to depose any witnesses. (Opp’n at 2.)

12 Plaintiffs further allege that they would be prejudiced by an extension because it would add to their legal expenses. (Id. at 5.)

15 Parties conferred, unsuccessfully, about a stipulated agreement for extending deadlines. Plaintiffs offered defendant a 30-day extension of all pre-trial dates, but only if all defendants would stipulate that expert testimony on the issue of exigency/warrantless removals “do[es] not apply.” (Appl. Mem. at 4.) That offer was apparently declined, and defendant’s instant ex parte application is the result.

22 A party seeking to modify a scheduling order must make a showing of good cause, a standard which focuses on the diligence of the moving party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 915 F.2d 604, 608-09 (9th Cir. 1992). Plaintiffs’ recent filing of the TAC and defendant’s One of the new defendants, Sasha Smith, is now represented by the County of Sacramento. (Appl. Mem. at 4.)

1 reasonable diligence in seeking an extension shortly thereafter provide sufficient good cause to modify the scheduling order.

3 Further, while the court takes note of plaintiffs’ charge that no defendant has undertaken any discovery up to this point, plaintiffs fail to demonstrate any concrete, overriding prejudice they would suffer from any extension. Accordingly, the court will extend discovery and trial-related deadlines by 60 days, with adjustments as necessary to account for weekends, holidays, and the court’s availability for pretrial conference and trial.

10 IT IS THEEREFORE ORDERED that the Stipulated Request to Continue Pre-Trial Deadlines Order (Docket No. 46) and Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order (Docket No. 34) be, and the same hereby are, MODIFIED as follows: 14 Deadline Existing As Modified Disclosure of experts and September 28, November 27, 2023 production of Fed. R. 2023 Civ. P. 26(a)(2) reports Disclosure of rebuttal October 16, 2023 December 15, 2023 experts and production of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) reports Completion of all November 22, 2023 January 19, 2024 discovery, including depositions for preservation of testimony; all discovery motions nnn nnn ene en een ee nn NE OE EO Deadline Existing As Modified All motions, except December 15, 2023 February 13, 2024 motions for continuances, temporary restraining orders, or other emergency applications Final pretrial conference | February 26, May 6, 2024, at 2024, at 1:30 1:30 p.m. in p.m. in Courtroom | Courtroom No. 5 No. 5 Jury trial April 23, 2024 June 25, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. at Courtroom No. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED.

16 eh Llaaw~ th. é.b-~-— Dated: September 28, 2023 WILLIAM B. SHUBB UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE