Mohrbacher v. Alameda County Sheriffs Office

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 JACLYN MOHRBACHER, et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-00050-JD 6 Plaintiffs, ORDER RE DISCOVERY 4 v. 8 ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFFS OFFICE, et al., ? Defendants.

11 Plaintiffs have asked to reopen discovery. Dkt. No. 369. The request is denied for lack of || good cause.

13 The grounds for denial are straightforward. Plaintiffs’ main contention is that defendant || CFMG/Wellpath identified witnesses in pretrial disclosures who were said to be a surprise. But 15 || Wellpath states, without dispute by plaintiffs, that the witnesses were disclosed in records a 16 || Wellpath produced during discovery and well before the pretrial filings. See Dkt. Nos. 373 at 1, 17 || 376. It may be that plaintiffs did not pick up on these witnesses, but that is on them and not || Wellpath. Plaintiffs’ lack of action is not a basis for re-opening discovery at this late date in a case || that has been pending since 2018. See City of Pomona v. SQM N. Am. Corp., 866 F.3d 1060, 1066 || (9th Cir. 2017). Plaintiffs also say that they “relied on the self-effectuating process of initial || disclosures,” Dkt. No. 369 at 5, but they never raised a question about Wellpath’s disclosures || when the time was right during discovery. Consequently, plaintiffs cannot credibly say they have || been deprived of a meaningful opportunity to conduct discovery.

24 IT IS SO ORDERED.

25 Dated: October 13, 2023 JAMES PONATO 27 United States District Judge