Barajas Centeno v. City of Carlsbad
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Daniel E. Butcher (author)
Analysis
The court considered two motions filed by the plaintiff: a motion for an extension of the fact discovery deadline and a motion to compel defendants to pay expert deposition costs. The court denied both motions, finding the plaintiff lacked good cause to extend discovery and that the motion to compel was moot because the expert discovery deadline had passed.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Denial of Plaintiff's Motion for Time to Conduct Discovery“The Court, therefore, denies this Motion.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the 'good cause' standard of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b) and the Ninth Circuit precedent in Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc. The plaintiff failed to demonstrate diligence by waiting two months after the deadline to file the motion and failed to specify what discovery would be conducted. The denial follows logically from the record and the cited law. |
Denial of Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Defendants to Pay Expert Deposition Costs“Plaintiff's Motion to Compel, therefore, is moot.” | agree with court The court determined the motion was moot because the deadline for expert discovery had passed and the deposition had not been noticed. This is a procedural determination based on the case management order and the timing of the filings. The reasoning is sound and supported by the docket references provided in the order. |
The order itself: sound — The order is concise and directly addresses the procedural deficiencies in the plaintiff's motions. It correctly cites the controlling Ninth Circuit authority for the discovery extension motion and accurately identifies the mootness of the second motion based on the expiration of the expert discovery deadline. There are no significant gaps in the reasoning for these procedural rulings.
Opinion
1 2 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSE LUIS BARAJAS CENTENO, Case No.: 3:19-cv-02098-L-DEB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. MOTIONS: 14 CITY OF CARLSBAD; JORDAN WALKER; and DOES 1 through 10, (1) FOR TIME TO CONDUCT 15 DISCOVERY [DKT. NO. 66-1]; Defendants. AND 16 17 (2) TO COMPEL DEFENDANTS TO PAY EXPERT 18 DEPOSITION COSTS [DKT. NO. 73] 19 22 Before Court are two motions by Plaintiff: (1) a Motion for Time to Conduct 23 Discovery, which was mis-filed as an attachment to Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions 24 Against Defendants and Defendants’ Counsel, Dkt. No. 66-2; and (2) a Motion for 25 Order to Compel Defendants to Pay Expert’s Deposition, Transcripts, and 26 Spanish/English Translators and Expert’s Travel Time. Dkt. No. 73.1 Defendants 27 28 1 oppose both motions. Dkt. Nos. 68, 85. I. Motion for Additional Time to Conduct Discovery 2 The deadline for completion of fact discovery passed on July 31, 2020. Dkt. 3 No. 33. Plaintiff now requests the Court extend it by ninety days so he may conduct 4 discovery regarding whether Defendants altered video footage of the subject incident 5 prior to producing it on May 28, 2020. Dkt. No. 66-1. He does not explain what 6 discovery he would take if granted the additional time. 7 Plaintiff has already conducted some discovery on this issue. On June 10, 2020, 8 he propounded discovery requesting that Defendants identify the individual(s) who 9 altered the video recordings and produce chain of custody documents for them. Id. at 10 5-6, ¶23, Ex. K, L. Defendants’ responses denied the videos were altered and 11 12 Defendants produced the chain of custody documentation. Id. at 6, ¶¶24, 25, Ex. M, 13 N. Plaintiff did not propound any additional discovery and his present motion 14 requesting relief from the fact discovery deadline was filed more than two months 15 after the deadline passed. 16 Plaintiff has not shown good cause, as required under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b), to 17 reopen fact discovery at this late date. Plaintiff fails to identify the additional 18 discovery he seeks and provides no explanation for why he waited until October to 19 seek relief from a deadline that passed in July. The Court, therefore, denies this 20 Motion. See Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992) 21 (“Rule 16(b)' s “good cause” standard primarily considers the diligence of the party 22 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 25 with deposing Defendants’ sole expert witness, Phillip Sanchez, on November 21, 26 which is set for hearing on January 11, 2021 at 9:30 a.m., at the same time as the 27 hearing on the Order to Show Cause Directed to Plaintiff’s Counsel Genaro Lara. Dkt. 28 , |2020. Dkt. No. 73. Plaintiff has not noticed Chief Sanchez’s deposition and the 4 |[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 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28