Diaz v. City of Merced

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California grants Plaintiff Armando Diaz’s request to reopen and extend expert discovery in his civil rights action against the City of Merced and related defendants. The court finds good cause and excusable neglect based on Plaintiff’s efforts to retain counsel while proceeding pro se, and orders the parties to meet and confer regarding revised expert-discovery, trial, and pretrial deadlines.

Holdings

1. A scheduling order may be modified to reopen expert discovery when the moving party demonstrates good cause, with diligence serving as the primary focus of the inquiry.
2. When a party seeks to modify an elapsed deadline, the court must also consider whether the failure to act resulted from excusable neglect under Rule 6(b)(1)(B).
3. Reopening limited expert discovery was warranted where the opposing party would not suffer undue prejudice and the modification served the interests of justice.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Plaintiff established good cause under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) to reopen and extend the expired expert-discovery deadlines.
2. Whether Plaintiff established excusable neglect under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)(B) for failing to comply with the expired deadlines.
3. Whether reopening expert discovery would cause undue prejudice or impair the orderly and efficient resolution of the case.

Disposition

other