Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Dec. 21, 2020

F. v. California Physicians' Service

Judge
Yvonne Rogers
Docket
4:19-cv-06078
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
1
DiscoveryCivil Procedure
In one sentence

Judge Rogers denied Amy F. v. California Physicians’ Service’s renewed discovery request and set a January 15, 2021 compliance deadline.

Who this affects

Amy F. and the defendants, including California Physicians’ Service doing business as Blue Shield of California.

What happened

In Amy F. v. California Physicians’ Service, Amy F. asked the court to reopen fact gathering in the case.

The court said she had not adequately explained why she missed the earlier discovery deadline or shown that she had acted diligently.

Judge Yvonne Rogers denied the request, set a compliance deadline of 9:01 a.m. on January 15, 2021, and required the parties to jointly propose a revised schedule for anticipated judgment motions five business days beforehand.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
F. v. California Physicians' Service · No. 4:19-cv-06078
Judge
Yvonne Rogers
Date
Dec. 21, 2020

Background

Amy F. requested renewed fact discovery in her case against California Physicians’ Service, doing business as Blue Shield of California, and other defendants. The court reviewed the parties’ filings concerning that request.

Court’s Analysis

The court found that Amy F. had not sufficiently explained why she could not meet the prior discovery cutoff. It also found that she had not demonstrated diligence either in making the renewed request or under the earlier discovery deadline. The court cited the rule that when a party seeking to modify a deadline was not diligent, the inquiry should end.

Ruling and Scheduling Order

The court denied Amy F.’s request for renewed fact discovery. It also set a compliance deadline for 9:01 a.m. on Friday, January 15, 2021. Five business days before that deadline, the parties were ordered to jointly file a proposed revised briefing schedule for anticipated motions for judgment. If compliance was complete, the court stated that the compliance deadline would be removed from the calendar.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.