Bashinski Jr. v. United States

District Court, S.D. California·Decided February 5, 2024·No. 3:23-cv-01026·Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 MARTIN MACK BASHINSKI JR., Case No.: 23-cv-01026-JO-JLB

12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IN PART 13 v. PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE MOTION AND AMENDING SCHEDULING ORDER 15 Defendant. [ECF No. 31] 16 17 18 Before the Court is the ex parte motion to modify the Scheduling Order filed by 19 Plaintiff Martin Mack Bashinski Jr. (“Plaintiff”) (ECF No. 31), and the response filed by 20 Defendant United States of America (“Defendant”) (ECF No. 34).1 For the reasons set 21 forth herein, the Court GRANTS in part Plaintiff’s motion (ECF No. 31) and AMENDS 22 the Scheduling Order (ECF No. 14). 23 24 25 1 Plaintiff entitled his filing “Plaintiff’s Motion to Object to Rule 35 Mental Examination.” (ECF No. 31.) Based on content and context, the Court construed the filing 26 as both a motion to amend the Scheduling Order and Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendant’s 27 motion to compel (ECF No. 30). The Court issued a briefing schedule, ordering Defendant to file a response to Plaintiff’s motion by January 30, 2024 (ECF No. 33), which Defendant 28 1 A. Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend 2 In his motion, Plaintiff seeks a four-month extension to all remaining dates in the 3 Scheduling Order (ECF No. 14), because he has focused his efforts since October on 4 responding to discovery motions filed by Defendant. (ECF No. 31 ¶ 9.) In response, 5 Defendant provides that it does not oppose the motion considering “that Plaintiff is 6 unfamiliar with the timeline of litigation due to his pro se status.” (ECF No. 34 at 2.) 7 However, in the interests of efficiency and a timely resolution, Defendant proposes a sixty- 8 day extension instead. (Id.) 9 Although the Court acknowledges that Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the instant 10 motion does not provide a fulsome explanation of Plaintiff’s due diligence. See Fed. R. 11 Civ. P. 16(b)(4) (“A schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s 12 consent.”); Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992) 13 (“Rule 16(b)’s ‘good cause’ standard primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking 14 the amendment. . . . If that party was not diligent, the inquiry should end.”). The case has 15 been pending since June 2, 2023, and the Scheduling Order was issued September 8, 2023. 16 (See ECF Nos. 1; 14.) Plaintiff does not explain why he could not have identified an expert 17 in the eight months since the case was filed, even if some of his time over the past four 18 months has been devoted to discovery disputes with Defendant. Neither does he explain 19 why he needs nearly five-and-a-half months from now to identify an expert and obtain a 20 report. 21 Despite these deficiencies in Plaintiff’s motion, considering Plaintiff is proceeding 22 pro se and Defendant does not oppose the instant motion, the Court finds good cause to 23 GRANT in part Plaintiff’s motion (ECF No. 31). 24 B. Amended Scheduling Order 25 Good cause appearing to continue all remaining dates by sixty-days, the Scheduling 26 Order (ECF No. 14) is hereby AMENDED as follows: 27 1. All fact discovery shall be completed by all parties by July 8, 2024. 28 “Completed” means that all discovery under Rules 30-36 of the Federal Rules of Civil 1 Procedure, and discovery subpoenas under Rule 45, must be initiated a sufficient period of 2 time in advance of the cut-off date, so that it may be completed by the cut-off date, taking 3 into account the times for service, notice and response as set forth in the Federal Rules of 4 Civil Procedure. Counsel shall promptly and in good faith meet and confer with 5 regard to all discovery disputes in compliance with Local Rule 26.1(a). The Court 6 expects counsel to make every effort to resolve all disputes without court intervention 7 through the meet and confer process. Discovery disputes must be brought to the Court’s 8 attention in the time and manner required by § V of Judge Burkhardt’s Civil Chambers 9 Rules. All discovery disputes must be raised within 30 calendar days of the service of 10 an objection, answer, or response that becomes the subject of dispute, or the passage of 11 a discovery due date without response or production, and only after counsel (and any 12 unrepresented parties) have met and conferred to resolve the dispute. See J. Burkhardt Civ. 13 Chambers R. § V. A failure to comply in this regard will result in a waiver of a party’s 14 discovery issue. Absent an order of the court, no stipulation continuing or altering 15 this requirement will be recognized by the court. 16 2. The parties shall designate their respective experts in writing by 17 May 13, 2024. The parties must identify any person who may be used at trial to present 18 evidence pursuant to Rules 702, 703 or 705 of the Fed. R. Evid. This requirement is not 19 limited to retained experts. The date for exchange of rebuttal experts shall be by 20 June 10, 2024. The written designations shall include the name, address and telephone 21 number of the expert and a reasonable summary of the testimony the expert is expected to 22 provide. The list shall also include the normal rates the expert charges for deposition and 23 trial testimony. 24 3. By May 13, 2024, each party shall comply with the disclosure provisions in 25 Rule 26(a)(2)(A) and (B) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This disclosure 26 requirement applies to all persons retained or specially employed to provide expert 27 testimony, or whose duties as an employee of the party regularly involve the giving of 28 expert testimony. Except as provided in the paragraph below, any party that fails to 1 make these disclosures shall not, absent substantial justification, be permitted to use 2 evidence or testimony not disclosed at any hearing or at the time of trial. In addition, 3 the Court may impose sanctions as permitted by Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c). 4 4. Any party shall supplement its disclosure regarding contradictory or rebuttal 5 evidence under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(D) by June 10, 2024. 6 5. All expert discovery shall be completed by all parties by July 8, 2024. The 7 parties shall comply with the same procedures set forth in the paragraph governing fact 8 discovery. 9 6. Failure to comply with this section or any other discovery order of the court 10 may result in the sanctions provided for in Fed. R. Civ. P. 37, including a prohibition on 11 the introduction of experts or other designated matters in evidence. 12 7. All other pretrial motions must be filed by August 5, 2024. Counsel for the 13 moving party must obtain a motion hearing date from the law clerk of the judge who will 14 hear the motion. The period of time between the date you request a motion date and the 15 hearing date may vary from one district judge to another. Please plan accordingly. Failure 16 to make a timely request for a motion date may result in the motion not being heard. 17 Motions in limine are to be filed as directed in the Local Rules, or as otherwise set by the 18 district judge. 19 8. A Mandatory Settlement Conference (“MSC”) will be held by video 20 conference2 on July 30, 2024 at 1:45 PM before Magistrate Judge Jill L. Burkhardt. 21 Mandatory directions for participating in the MSC by video conference are attached 22 hereto. The purpose of the MSC is to permit an informal, candid discussion between the 23

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Bashinski Jr. v. United States, (S.D. Cal. 2024).

Bashinski Jr. v. United States (Bashinski Jr. v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Sharon v. Sharon, 11991 (Cal. 7-17-1889)
22 P. 26 (California Supreme Court, 1889)
Dalton v. Rentaria
15 P. 37 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1887)
Pitman v. Brinker International, Inc.
216 F.R.D. 481 (D. Arizona, 2003)