Reid v. Centurion

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Shawn Franklin Reid, No. CV-20-01893-PHX-JAT

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Corizon, Karen Barcklay, Clarisse Nguella NaNa, and Carrie Smalley, 13 Defendants. 14 15 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend Expert Discovery 16 Deadline. (Doc. 162). Defendants have responded, (Doc. 165), and Plaintiff has replied, 17 (Doc. 166). The Court now rules. 18 I. BACKGROUND 19 In his Motion, Plaintiff wishes to extend the expert witness disclosure deadline. The 20 Court ordered expedited briefing on this motion because trial is set for this matter in one 21 month. (See Doc. 164). Specifically, the Court ordered both parties to explain what Plaintiff 22 meant by “disclosure was not provided to undersigned counsel until January 31, 2024.” 23 (Doc. 164 at 1). 24 The Court entered a Scheduling Order on January 26, 2022, stating that Plaintiff 25 must disclose all expert witnesses and their reports by April 11, 2022. (See Doc. 53). The 26 discovery deadline expired nearly eighteen months ago. According to Defendants, 27 discovery including Plaintiff’s medical records was given to Plaintiff on April 11, 2022, 28 and May 2, 2022. (Doc. 165 at 2). Plaintiff’s counsel assumed representation of Plaintiff 1 and filed a Notice of Appearance on October 30, 2023. (See Doc. 142). Plaintiff’s counsel 2 claims there was “no file inherited from a prior attorney” and so the medical records 3 available for review on October 30, 2023, “were but a small portion of the 3,025 pages 4 defense designated and attached as trial exhibits” on January 31, 2024. (Doc. 166 at 1). 5 Plaintiff claimed in his first motion that “disclosure” was not provided until January 31, 6 2024, but this seems to only be a reference to Defendants sending trial exhibits to Plaintiff 7 on that date. Plaintiff does not assert that Defendants “[did] anything wrong” in their 8 compliance with discovery. 9 II. DISCUSSION 10 By requesting to extend the expert discovery deadline, Plaintiff is necessarily asking 11 the Court to modify its January 26, 2022, Scheduling Order. “A schedule may be modified 12 only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). Rule 16(b)(4) 13 “primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” Johnson v. 14 Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). The Court may modify the 15 scheduling order “if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking 16 the extension.” Id. (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 advisory committee notes (1983 17 amendment)). The focus of the inquiry is on the moving party’s reasons for the extension. 18 Id. 19 Here, Plaintiff’s counsel entered an initial appearance on October 30, 2023. 20 Plaintiff’s counsel claims he “reviewed the entire case docket, and various medical records 21 submitted to counsel by Plaintiff’s friend, which substantiate Plaintiff’s plausible claims 22 for relief.” (Doc. 166 at 1). However, despite there being “no file inherited from a prior 23 attorney,” Plaintiff’s counsel did not reach out to opposing counsel to determine if he had 24 all the discovery that had been disclosed in the case. The Court understands that reviewing 25 three thousand pages of discovery is a daunting and long-winded task, but that is precisely 26 why counsel for Plaintiff should have requested all discovery in the case at the beginning 27 of his representation. Waiting three months until an unprompted receipt of documents from 28 opposing counsel to begin review of medical records does not constitute diligence for the 1 || purposes of Rule 16(b)(4). See Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609 (“[C]arelessness is not compatible || with a finding of diligence and offers no reason for a grant of relief.”). Thus, Plaintiff has || failed to show good cause to extend the expert disclosure deadline. 4 Accordingly, 5 IT IS ORDERED Plaintiff's Motion to Extend Expert Discovery Deadline, (Doc. 6|| 162), is DENIED. 7 Dated this 19th day of March, 2024. 8 ? ' 10 a _sS C “ James A. Teilborg 1] Senior United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-3-