Scalph v. Timber Products Trucking, LLC
- Jeffrey White
- 4:24-cv-02614
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 6
In Scalph v. Timber Products Trucking, Judge Tigar granted the Scalphs’ subpoena challenge and denied defendants’ request to reopen discovery and conduct medical examinations.
Scott and Angela Scalph: their request to quash the untimely subpoenas was granted. Timber Products Trucking, LLC, Timber Products Trucking, Inc., and Josef Woolen: their request to reopen fact discovery and conduct medical examinations was denied.
What happened
In Scalph v. Timber Products Trucking, Scott and Angela Scalph asked the court to quash subpoenas that defendants sent to Scott Scalph’s medical providers after the discovery deadline. Defendants sought to reopen fact discovery and arrange medical examinations of Scott Scalph.
The court found that defendants knew Scott’s injuries were important and had information about his medical providers well before discovery closed. But defendants waited until shortly before or after the deadline to issue at least 45 subpoenas and did not timely seek permission to extend discovery. The court also found that defendants had not shown the required good cause for conducting the medical examinations at that stage.
Judge Tigar granted the Scalphs’ request to quash the untimely subpoenas and denied defendants’ request to reopen fact discovery and conduct medical examinations. The court concluded that defendants had not acted diligently and had not established good cause for post-deadline discovery.
The detailed version
- Scalph v. Timber Products Trucking, LLC · No. 4:24-cv-02614
- Jeffrey White
- July 28, 2025
Background
Scott Scalph was injured in a collision between his automobile and a semi-truck driven by Josef Woolen. Scott and Angela Scalph originally filed the action in state court, and defendants later removed it to federal court. Scott alleged numerous physical, mental, and emotional injuries.
During the state-court case, defendants requested records from health-care providers involved in treating Scott’s injuries. The Scalphs produced the medical records and billing information in Scott’s possession. After removal, defendants stated in a case-management filing that the nature and extent of Scott’s injuries, including their relationship to pre-existing conditions, required further investigation and that they might seek medical examinations.
The Scalphs’ initial disclosures identified 27 medical providers in July 2024. They supplemented the disclosures in May 2025, identifying 12 additional providers and providing treatment notes. Those materials included information that Dr. Greer Waldrop had diagnosed Scott with multiple sclerosis in December 2024. The Scalphs provided provider addresses and telephone numbers in a second supplemental disclosure on June 6, 2025.
Fact discovery closed on June 10, 2025. Defendants issued at least 45 subpoenas to Scott’s medical providers: 30 on June 9, 14 on June 20, and at least one each on June 24 and June 27. The subpoenas required production after the discovery deadline. On July 21, defendants noticed three medical examinations of Scott, scheduled for September 2025; two were set for after expert discovery would close.
Legal standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 allows a court to change a scheduling order for good cause. The court explained that good cause primarily depends on the diligence of the party seeking the change. Under Civil Local Rule 37-3, discovery requiring responses or depositions after the applicable deadline is not enforceable unless the court orders it for good cause. The rule also required discovery disputes to be brought to the court within seven days after fact discovery closed.
Analysis
The court found that defendants had not shown good cause for failing to serve the subpoenas, conduct a medical examination, or pursue other affirmative discovery before the deadline. Defendants argued that the Scalphs had waited until May 2025 to disclose Scott’s multiple sclerosis diagnosis and that the requested discovery was necessary to prepare a defense. The court stated that it was not deciding whether the Scalphs violated their disclosure obligations. It also assumed for purposes of the motion that the requested discovery was relevant. But relevance did not establish diligence or good cause for the delay.
The court found that defendants had received information about Scott’s 27 medical providers in July 2024 but issued subpoenas only one day before fact discovery closed. Defendants had not served interrogatories, requests for production, requests for admission, or a request for a medical examination after removal to federal court, despite stating that they anticipated pursuing some of that discovery. The court also noted that defendants received the supplemental provider list and medical records six weeks before the discovery deadline and did not request more time or seek an enlargement of the deadlines.
The court separately found no good cause for the late medical examinations. Defendants had anticipated requesting examinations in July 2024 but made no effort to do so until after fact discovery closed. They proposed examinations by four providers, only one of whom specialized in multiple sclerosis, and did not explain the delay regarding the other three providers. The court also found that defendants waited until July 10 to seek relief even though the local rule required a discovery-related motion by June 17 at the latest.
Disposition
The court found that defendants were not diligent and had not established good cause to conduct discovery after the fact-discovery cutoff. Judge Tigar GRANTED the Scalphs’ request to quash the untimely subpoenas and DENIED defendants’ request to reopen fact discovery and conduct medical examinations.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.