United States District Court, C.D. California
VALLEY SURGICAL CENTER LLC., a California Limited Liability Company, Plaintiff,
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, a government entity, et al., Defendants.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION
FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE RESPONSES AND OTHER COURT
DEADLINES [DKT. 528]
D. PREGERSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
before the court is Plaintiff's Ex Parte Application for
extension of time to file responses to Defendants'
Motions for Summary Judgment and to extend other court
deadlines sixty days. Having considered the submissions of
the parties, the court denies the ex-parte application and
adopts the following Order.
court has set forth the basic facts of this case in its prior
orders. (See Dkts. 226, 237, 263.) Relevant here, the court
issued a scheduling order on September 17, 2018 establishing
the following deadlines: May 16, 2019 (expert disclosures);
June 21, 2019 (rebuttal experts); June 21, 2019 (fact
discovery); June 21, 2019 (last day to file motions); August
30, 2019 (expert discovery cut-off); September 9, 2019 (final
pretrial); September 17, 2019 (trial).
February 28, 2019, the court granted Plaintiff's
counsel's motion to withdraw and ordered Plaintiff to
obtain new counsel by March 13, 2019. (Dkt. 468.) On March
14, 2019, attorney Francis Flynn appeared on behalf of
Plaintiff. (Dkt. 469.) On May 16, 2019, the last day to
designate experts, Plaintiff designated its experts and
disclosed their reports. (Dkt. 490-1.) Shortly thereafter, on
June 2, 2019, attorney Francis Flynn, moved to be relieved as
counsel. (Dkt. 471.) On June 20, 2019, the court granted the
motion and ordered Plaintiff to obtain new counsel by July 4,
2019. (Dkt. 482.) On June 21, 2019, the last day to file
dispositive motions, Defendants filed Motions for Summary
Judgment. Defendants noticed the motions for August 6, 2019,
allowing twenty-eight days for any new counsel to oppose the
motions. On July 4, 2019, attorney Casey Yim appeared on
behalf of Plaintiff. (Dkt. 501.)
28, 2019, Plaintiff filed an ex-parte application to extend
discovery. (Dkt. 498.) The court ordered the ex-parte
stricken, however, on July 5, 2019, aware of the issues
described in Plaintiff's ex-parte application because it
was not filed by counsel of record, the court re-opened fact
discovery and extended the motion cut-off date to October 21,
2019. (Dkt. 502.) On July 15, 2019, Plaintiff filed another
ex-parte application this time requesting an extension of
time to oppose Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment.
(Dkt. 516.) The court granted Plaintiff's ex-parte and
ordered any opposition to be filed by August 12, 2019. (Dkt.
25, 2019, Plaintiff notified the court of attorney Casey
Yim's death. (Dkt. 524.) In response to counsel's
death, the court ordered Plaintiff to obtain counsel by
August 16, 2019, and extended Plaintiff's opposition
deadline to September 3, 2019. (Dkt. 525.) On August 16,
2019, attorney Mark Madison appeared on behalf of Plaintiff.
(Dkt. 527.) On August 23, 2019, Plaintiff filed the present
ex-parte application requesting the court to reopen expert
designation and to extend all deadlines sixty days.
schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the
judge's consent.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b)(4). The court
finds that Plaintiff has not demonstrated good cause to
first, re-open the time to designate experts, and second, to
extend all future deadlines by sixty days. Expert disclosures
and reports were due on May 16, 2019, nearly ninety days ago.
Plaintiff, through counsel, timely disclosed its experts and
reports on May 16, 2019. Plaintiff has not demonstrated good
cause to reopen these expert deadlines.
Plaintiff has not demonstrated good cause for a sixty-day
extension to file its opposition to the pending motions. The
motions have been pending before the court since June 21,
2019-the last day to file motions according the court's
scheduling order. While the court is sensitive to the
unexpected death of prior counsel, Plaintiff's new
counsel had notice of the pending motions since at least
August 16, when he appeared on behalf of Plaintiff. Moreover,
Plaintiff did not file the present ex-parte until seven days
after new counsel's appearance. Plaintiff asserts that
the time to oppose the motions was insufficient because
counsel had to review a lengthy record, counsel had other
cases to attend to, and counsel is working to obtain
Plaintiff's records from prior counsel. In light of the
lengthy history of this case as presented above, and the
sufficient notice Plaintiff's counsel had regarding the
set deadlines, the court finds that Plaintiff's reasons
are insufficient to demonstrate good cause.
court denies Plaintiff's ex-parte application to re-open
expert disclosures for lack of good cause shown. The court
further denies Plaintiff's request to extend all dates
sixty days. However, the court grants a limited extension for
Plaintiff's oppositions to the pending motions before
this court. Oppositions shall be filed on or before September
9, 2019. All remaining dates shall remain unchanged.