Mohrbacher v. Alameda County Sheriffs Office

Opinion

1 4 5 JACLYN MOHRBACHER, et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-00050-JD 6 Plaintiffs, ORDER RE DISCOVERY 4 v. OFFICE, et al., ? Defendants. 10 11 Plaintiffs have asked to reopen discovery. Dkt. No. 369. The request is denied for lack of 12 good cause. 13 The grounds for denial are straightforward. Plaintiffs’ main contention is that defendant 14 CFMG/Wellpath identified witnesses in pretrial disclosures who were said to be a surprise. But 3 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, 3 17 || 376. It may be that plaintiffs did not pick up on these witnesses, but that is on them and not 18 Wellpath. Plaintiffs’ lack of action is not a basis for re-opening discovery at this late date in a case 19 that has been pending since 2018. See City of Pomona v. SQM N. Am. Corp., 866 F.3d 1060, 1066 20 (9th Cir. 2017). Plaintiffs also say that they “relied on the self-effectuating process of initial 21 disclosures,” Dkt. No. 369 at 5, but they never raised a question about Wellpath’s disclosures 22 when the time was right during discovery. Consequently, plaintiffs cannot credibly say they have 23 been deprived of a meaningful opportunity to conduct discovery. 25 Dated: October 13, 2023 26 JAMES PONATO 27 United States District Judge 28