# Brown v. Lane County

> District Court, D. Oregon · June 5, 2024

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10397501

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, D. Oregon
- **Decided:** June 5, 2024
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10397501

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

EUGENE DIVISION

ANTHONY BROWN, Case No. 6:21-cv-01866-AA
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff,

vs.

LANE COUNTY; DR. ALFREDO VELEZ;
NATHAN L. GENT; WELLPATH, LLC;
JOHN/JANE DOES 1-5,

Defendants.

AIKEN, District Judge:
Plaintiff Anthony Brown proceeds in forma pauperis (“IFP”) in this civil rights
action against Defendants Nathan Gent, and Lane County. Before the Court is
Plaintiff’s motion to extend discovery deadlines from March 15, 2024, until July 15,
2024. ECF No. 52. For the reasons explained, Plaintiff’s motion to extend time for
discovery, ECF No. 52, is DENIED.
LEGAL STANDARD
“The district court is given broad discretion in supervising the pretrial phase
of litigation, and its decisions regarding the preclusive effect of a pretrial order ... will
not be disturbed unless they evidence a clear abuse of discretion.” Miller v. Safeco
Title Ins. Co., 758 F.2d 364, 369 (9th Cir. 1985). A request to extend unexpired
deadlines in the scheduling order must be premised on a showing of good cause. Fed.
R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). The good cause analysis turns on whether the subject deadlines
cannot reasonably be met despite the exercise of diligence. Johnson v. Mammoth
Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992).
The good cause standard requiring that a party must be diligent in seeking to

modify a scheduling order includes no caveat or exception for when other motions are
pending. See Williams v. James River Grp. Inc., 627 F. Supp. 3d 1172, 1177 (D. Nev.
2022) (“‘The diligence obligation is ongoing’ ... [and although] [t]he showing of
diligence is measured by the conduct displayed throughout the entire period of time
already allowed... carelessness is not compatible with a finding of diligence and offers
no reason for a grant of relief.”) (internal citations omitted). That parties waited until

the last minute to conduct discovery and have run into obstacles in timely completing
that discovery is not good cause to extend deadlines. See id. When diligence has not
been shown in support of an extension request, “the inquiry should end.” Johnson,
975 F.2d at 609.
DISCUSSION
The Court has extended discovery deadlines many times since Plaintiff filed
his complaint in 2021. The Court extended discovery From July 26, 2022, to

December 23, 2022. ECF No. 24. Again, the Court granted an extension of discovery
from December 23, 2022, until May 22, 2023. ECF No. 32. From May 22, 2023, the
Court extended discovery until January 16, 2024. ECF No. 39. Finally, the Court
granted an extension of discovery from January 16, 2024, until March 15, 2024. On
March 14, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion for extension of discovery, explaining that he
had not yet been able to depose Nathan Gent and Lane County. ECF No. 52.
Plaintiff’s counsel asserts that extension is warranted because he was ill in
January 2024. ECF No. 53. Plaintiff did not propose dates for deposing Defendants
Nathan Gent and Lane County until Defendants conferred with Plaintiff on their

motion for summary judgment, filed on March 12, 2024. ECF No. 53; ECF No. 55.
Plaintiff states that he will not be able to properly respond to that pending motion
without deposing Defendants. ECF No. 53. Defendants oppose Plaintiff’s motion for
an extension of time. ECF No. 54.
Plaintiff’s assertion that he was ill in January 2024 does not demonstrate good
cause or provide evidence of any measure of diligence, especially when the Court

considers the conduct displayed throughout the entire period of time already allowed.
This is Plaintiff’s case and Plaintiff has failed to schedule depositions for the lead
Defendants for two years. Plaintiff only filed the motion for extension of time to
depose Defendants after Defendants conferred with him on their motion for summary
Judgement. Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that he acted diligently in seeking to
extend the scheduling order to conduct discovery. This carelessness is not compatible
with a finding of diligence and offers no reason for a grant of relief. Plaintiff has

failed to satisfy the good cause standard under Rule 16.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons explained, Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend the Time for Discovery,
ECF No. 52, is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this _5_t_h__ day of ___J_u_n_e___ 2024.

______________/s_/_A_n_n__ A__ik_e_n__
Ann Aiken
United States District Judge

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10397501. Public record. Not legal advice.