Holmes v. Estock
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Michael M. Anello (author)
Analysis
Plaintiff Charles Holmes, a pro se inmate represented by court-appointed counsel, moved for leave to file a late Daubert motion challenging defendants' expert witnesses in his Section 1983 medical care case. The court granted the unopposed motion, finding good cause to modify the scheduling order due to prior counsel's failures, and set a briefing schedule for the Daubert motion.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Granting Plaintiff's unopposed motion for leave to file a Daubert motion“The Court therefore GRANTS Plaintiff's unopposed motion and SETS the following schedule and limitations:” | agree with court The court applied the 'good cause' standard required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) to modify the scheduling order. The court cited specific facts: the motion was filed more than three years late, but prior counsel's 'grossly negligent' failures (failure to file Daubert motion and oppose summary judgment) were well-documented, and current counsel have been diligent. This aligns with Ninth Circuit precedent (Community Dental Services v. Tani) that prior attorney gross negligence can satisfy the good cause standard. The decision follows from the law and the recited record. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the applicable standard (Rule 16(b)(4) good cause) and applies it to the specific facts of the case (prior counsel's documented failures). It cites binding Ninth Circuit authority (Community Dental Services) that directly supports the conclusion. The reasoning is concise but sufficient for an unopposed motion based on documented prior counsel misconduct.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 CHARLES HOLMES, Case No.: 16-cv-2458-MMA (BLM)
11 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 12 vs. UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A DAUBERT MOTION 13 ESTOCK, et al., 14 Defendants. [Doc. No. 187] 15 16 17 Plaintiff Charles Holmes, a California inmate, brings this civil rights action 18 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of his Eighth Amendment right to 19 adequate medical care. On June 16, 2022, the Court appointed Plaintiff Pro Bono 20 Counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) and General Order 596. See Doc. No. 169. 21 Plaintiff now moves the Court for leave to file a motion challenging Defendants’ experts 22 pursuant to Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 582 (1993). 23 Pursuant to the Rule 16 Scheduling Order and the undersigned’s Civil Chambers 24 Rules, Daubert motions were due no later than October 4, 2019. See Doc. No. 93; Civ. 25 Chambers R. IX fn. 3. Although Plaintiff seeks to file a Daubert motion more than three 26 years late, his prior counsel’s failures, including his failure to file a Daubert motion and 27 timely oppose summary judgment, are well-documented. See Doc. Nos. 157, 168. 28 Further, the record demonstrates that since appointment, Plaintiff’s current counsel have 1 diligent in pursuing discovery and readying this case for trial. Accordingly, the 2 || Court finds good cause to modify the Rule 16 Scheduling Order to permit Plaintiff to file 3 Daubert motion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4) (“A schedule may be modified only for 4 || good cause and with the judge’s consent.”); see also Valentine v. Nielsen, No. 16cv2357- 5 || W(KSC), 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39285, at *12 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 9, 2018) (“Parties may be 6 || able to satisfy the ‘good cause’ standard if they can show that a prior attorney’s actions 7 || were “grossly negligent.’”’) (quoting Community Dental Servs. v. Tani, 282 F.3d 1164, 8 (9th Cir. 2002)). The Court therefore GRANTS Plaintiff's unopposed motion and 9 SETS the following schedule and limitations: 10 1. Plaintiff may file one omnibus motion, not to exceed twenty-five (25) pages, 11 asserting all Daubert challenges on or before July 14, 2023. 12 2. Defendants’ opposition, not to exceed twenty-five (25) pages, is due on or 13 before July 28, 2023. 14 3. No reply briefs will be accepted. 15 4. The Court will hear oral argument on Plaintiff's Daubert motion at the Final 16 || Pretrial Conference, September 11, 2023 at 1:30 p.m. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 ||Dated: May 25, 2023 19 Mikel Ub Clinhls MA “£4 20 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 A Th ACO REREA □□□