Mohrbacher v. Alameda County Sheriffs Office
- James Donato
- 3:18-cv-00050
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
In Mohrbacher v. Alameda County Sheriffs Office, Judge Donato denied plaintiffs’ request to reopen discovery because they lacked good cause.
The plaintiffs’ request for additional discovery was denied; defendant CFMG/Wellpath was not required to reopen discovery based on the witnesses identified in its prior records.
What happened
In Mohrbacher v. Alameda County Sheriffs Office, the plaintiffs asked the court to reopen discovery in a case pending since 2018. They said witnesses identified by defendant CFMG/Wellpath in pretrial disclosures came as a surprise.
The court denied the request for lack of good cause. It explained that the witnesses had already been identified in records Wellpath produced during discovery, and that the plaintiffs had not raised questions about the disclosures when discovery was ongoing. The court said the plaintiffs’ failure to notice the witnesses earlier was not a reason to reopen discovery.
Judge James Donato issued the order on October 13, 2023. The order concluded that the plaintiffs had not been deprived of a meaningful opportunity to conduct discovery.
The detailed version
- Mohrbacher v. Alameda County Sheriffs Office · No. 3:18-cv-00050
- James Donato
- Oct. 13, 2023
Background
The plaintiffs asked to reopen discovery. Their main argument was that defendant CFMG/Wellpath identified witnesses in its pretrial disclosures who allegedly came as a surprise.
Ruling
The court denied the request for lack of good cause. “Good cause” requires a sufficient justification for changing the case’s schedule or allowing additional discovery. The court found that Wellpath had identified the witnesses in records it produced during discovery, well before the pretrial filings. The plaintiffs did not dispute that point.
The court stated that the plaintiffs may not have noticed the witnesses, but treated that failure as the plaintiffs’ responsibility rather than Wellpath’s. It also noted that the plaintiffs had not questioned Wellpath’s disclosures during the discovery period and therefore could not credibly claim that they lacked a meaningful opportunity to conduct discovery. The court relied on City of Pomona v. SQM North America Corp., 866 F.3d 1060, 1066 (9th Cir. 2017).
Disposition
The request to reopen discovery was denied. Judge James Donato entered the order on October 13, 2023.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.