Dunham v. Najem

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: January 22, 2021
• Docket: 3:18-cv-04467
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 JOHN F. DUNHAM, Case No. 18-cv-04467-AGT

9 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 10 v. MOTION TO CONTINUE EXPERT DISCOVERY DEADLINES 11 COUNTY OF MONTEREY, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 142 Defendants. 12

13 Before the Court is John Dunham’s motion to continue the current expert discovery 14 deadlines. At the motion hearing, Dunham confirmed that he won’t be retaining a medical expert 15 to testify at trial. He will instead be relying on the testimony of his treating physicians. Because 16 of this choice, he has less control over the pace of expert discovery. He must wait to be seen and 17 treated by medical providers who have busy schedules, schedules that have been further strained 18 by Covid-19. 19 So that Dunham can be evaluated by the medical providers he is scheduled to see, the 20 Court will allow a reasonable extension of the expert discovery deadlines. The parties are directed 21 to meet and confer on a revised schedule, and to file their proposal with the Court, by February 3, 22 2021. On February 5, 2021, the Court will hold a further case management conference to address 23 the proposal and the timing of trial. 24 * * * 25 Also at the motion hearing, the Court asked the parties whether Dunham, under his 26 remaining causes of action, will be able to seek damages for his physical injuries, including for 27 future medical care. The parties submitted supplemental briefs on this issue after the hearing, and 1 be recovered if Dunham prevails on his claims. See Castro v. Cty. of Los Angeles, 797 F.3d 654, 2 || 675-76 (9th Cir. 2015) (deliberate indifference claim; affirming damages award for past and 3 future medical expenses), incorporated in opinion on reh’g en banc, 833 F.3d 1060, 1066 n.2 (9th 4 || Cir. 2016); Davis v. Mason Cty., 927 F.2d 1473, 1479-83 (9th Cir. 1991) (Monell failure-to-train 5 claim; affirming damages award that compensated for, inter alia, physical injuries); Jackson v. 6 || Lombardi, No. 09-CV-01016-WHA, 2010 WL 3834012, at *2—3 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 28, 2010) (same 7 || as Davis, but for First Amendment retaliation claim), aff’d sub nom. Jackson v. City of Pittsburg, 8 || 518 F. App’x 518 (9th Cir. 2013). 9 The defendants, in their supplemental brief, addressed topics that weren’t responsive to the 10 Court’s question. See ECF No. 152 (discussing Bivens actions and raising administrative- 11 exhaustion and causation defenses). The Court won’t consider those topics here. If the defendants 12 || seek to pursue legal defenses that they haven’t waived and that they haven’t previously presented 5 13 to the Court, they must request leave to raise them in a formally noticed motion. IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 15 Dated: January 22, 2021 16

Ah 8 ALEX G.TSE _ United States Magistrate Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28