Opinion
CV-18-00513-TUC-JCH
12-05-2022
Darren Robert Pedersen, Plaintiff, v. Corizon Health Incorporated, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
HONORABLE JOHN C. HINDERAKER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Before the Court are two related motions: (1) Plaintiff Darren Robert Pedersen ("Plaintiff") and Defendant Corizon Health, Inc.'s ("Corizon") Joint Motion to Reopen Additional Discovery and Extend Discovery ("Motion II"), filed on November 22, 2022 (Doc. 187); and (2) Corizon's Motion to Reopen Discovery for Limited Purpose ("Motion I"), filed on October 24, 2022 (Doc. 181). For the following reasons, the Court grants Motion II and denies Motion I.
Plaintiff did not respond to or otherwise object to Motion I.
I. Background
Seeking discovery that he was unable to secure as an incarcerated pro se party, Plaintiff filed a motion to reopen discovery, (see Doc. 157), which the Court granted in part and denied in part (Doc. 180). The Court provided Plaintiff leave to conduct four depositions, to propound a request for production for litigation documents with certain conditions, and to obtain certain financial records from Corizon. (Doc. 180 at 9-10.) Plaintiff's remaining requests were denied. (Id.)
Three weeks later, Corizon filed Motion I seeking limited discovery. (Doc. 181.) Motion I argues that because "Plaintiff will be engaging in additional discovery, such as document retrieval and depositions of various fact witnesses" the "need for additional discovery on Corizon's end..." is warranted. (Id. at 3.) In Motion I, Corizon request leave to (1) depose Plaintiff; (2) retain and disclose expert witnesses; and (3) conduct an Independent Medical Examination ("IME") on Plaintiff. (See id.)
In the interim, the parties jointly filed Motion II, apparently reaching consensus on several items requested by Corizon in Motion I. (Doc. 187.) Both motions implicitly seek to reopen discovery.
I. Legal Standard
A scheduling order may be modified only for good cause and with the judge's consent. Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b)(4). Courts consider several factors when deciding whether a party has shown "good cause" to reopen discovery, see, e.g., City of Pomona v. SQM N. Am. Corp., 866 F.3d 1060, 1066 (9th Cir. 2017) (listing factors), but the primary consideration is whether the moving party was diligent in its attempts to complete discovery in a timely manner, see Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992) ("Rule 16(b)' s 'good cause' standard primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment."). If the moving party was not diligent, the inquiry should end, and the request should be denied. Id.
Factors the Court is to consider include: (1) whether trial is imminent, (2) whether the request is opposed, (3) whether the non-moving party would be prejudiced, (4) whether the moving party was diligent in obtaining discovery within the guidelines established by the court, (5) the foreseeability of the need for additional discovery in light of the time allowed for discovery by the district court, and 6) the likelihood that the discovery will lead to relevant evidence. City of Pomona, 866 F.3d at 1066.
II. Analysis
A. Motion II
In Motion II, the parties seek the following: (1) allow Corizon to depose Plaintiff; (2) allow Corizon to conduct an independent medical examination on Plaintiff; (3) allow Plaintiff to depose his new medical provider; and (4) extend the limited discovery deadline from January 27, 2023, to March 24, 2023. (See Doc. 187.) The additional discovery, according to the parties, "will streamline trial and facilitate further settlement discussions." (Id.)
Most of the Pomona factors support the additional discovery requested in Motion II. Although this case has been pending since 2018, no trial date has been set in this action and as noted above, limited discovery has already been granted. (See Doc. 180 at 4.) The parties jointly filed Motion II and there is no indication that either side will be prejudiced. Because the requested discovery will aid in trial preparation and resolving this case on the merits, Motion II is granted.
B. Motion I
Because the Court has provided Corizon leave to depose Plaintiff and conduct an Independent Medical Examination, these requests are denied as moot. Corizon's remaining request, to retain and disclose expert witnesses, is also denied for the following reasons.
Corizon argues that "[e]xpert opinions [are] relevant as to Corizon's defenses and will [] aide a trier of fact as to the technical and medical aspects of Plaintiff's claims." (Doc. 181 at 3.) Corizon fails to adequately describe the topics on which the experts would opine or describe why this evidence is needed to explain Plaintiff's care regarding his seizure disorder. For example, Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claim alleges that Corizon failed to follow specialists' recommendations and its own providers' request for outside consultations. (See Doc. 141 at 36.) It's unclear what "technical or medical aspects" will be clarified by an expert witness that could not be elicited from Corizon's fact witnesses and healthcare providers. Denying Corizon's request for expert opinions is not prejudicial given that Plaintiff did not request any expert opinions in his motion to reopen discovery. Further, granting expert discovery, at this stage where only limited discovery has been allowed, will effectively reopen the entire discovery process and cause further delay. Motion I is denied.
III. Order
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE Corizon's Motion to Reopen Discovery for Limited Purpose (Doc. 181);
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED GRANTING the parties' Joint Motion to Reopen Additional Discovery and Extend Discovery (Doc. 187). Limited discovery is reopened as follows:
1. Defendant Corizon Health, Inc. has leave to depose Plaintiff Darren Pedersen;
2. Corizon has leave to perform an independent medical examination on Plaintiff;
3. Plaintiff has leave to depose Plaintiff's current outside medical provider; and
4. The limited discovery previously granted by this Court, located at Docket 180, and the limited discovery outlined above shall be completed no later than March 27, 2023.