Jay Campos, et al. v. County of Orange, et al Case No. 8:23-cv-00072-WLH (JDE) United States District Court, C.D. California Filed September 13, 2024 Counsel Christian M. Contreras, Edwin Stuart Salguero, Law Offices of Christian Contreras PLC, Los Angeles, CA, Humberto M. Guizar, Guizar Henderson and Carrazco LLP, Irvine, CA, for Jay Campos, et al. Michael L. Wroniak, Collins and Collins, LLP, Orange, CA, Bonnie J. Bennett, Collins and Collins, LLP, Pasadena, CA, for County of Orange, et al. Early, John D., United States Magistrate Judge Proceedings: (Chambers) Order Denying Motion to Compel [Dkt. 52] *1 On September 30, 2023, Jay Campos and Rosalee Campos, individually and as successor-in-intertest to Joshua Campos (“Plaintiffs”) filed a civil complaint in Orange County Superior Court against the County of Orange (“County”), Sheriff Don Barnes (“Sheriff”), and DOES 1-10, alleging claims for, among other things, civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 allegedly stemming from the death of Joshua Campos while in the Sheriff's custody. Dkt. 1-1. On January 13, 2023, the County and the Sheriff removed the action to this Court on the basis of federal question jurisdiction. Dkt. 1. On March 29, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint (Dkt. 18, “FAC”) that, among other things, added several individual defendants and removed the Sheriff as a named defendant. After a ruling on a Motion to Dismiss the FAC, on March 19, 2024, Plaintiffs filed the operative Second Amended Complaint. Dkt. 41. On March 22, 2023, the Honorable James V. Selna, United States District Judge, issued the initial Scheduling Order governing the case that included, among other deadlines, a discovery cut-off date of October 30, 2023. Dkt. 16. After the case was reassigned to him, on October 17, 2023, the Honorable Wesley L. Hsu, United States District Judge, issued a Civil Pretrial Schedule and Trial Order that, among other things, confirmed that the March 22, 2023 Scheduling Order governed the case schedule. Dkt. 31 (“Pretrial Order”) at 1. The Pretrial Order further provided: The cut-off date for discovery is not the date by which discovery requests must be served; it is the date by which all discovery, including all hearings on any related motions, must be completed. Thus, written discovery must be served and depositions must begin sufficiently in advance of the discovery cut-off date to permit the propounding party enough time, if the party chooses, to challenge via motion practice any responses the party asserts are deficient. Id. at 2 (emphasis added). On November 20, 2023, pursuant to the parties' stipulation, Judge Hsu continued the trial date and extended certain cut-off dates, including the discovery cut-off date, but Judge Hsu did not alter the Pretrial Order's requirement that the discovery cut-off date was also a cut-off date for the hearing of any discovery motions. See Dkt. 37. On January 18, 2024, again pursuant to the parties' stipulation, Judge Hsu again extended certain cut-off dates, including the discovery cut-off date, but Judge Hsu did not alter the Pretrial Order's requirement that the discovery cut-off date was also a cut-off date for the hearing of any discovery motions. See Dkt. 39. On April 16, 2024, again pursuant to the parties' stipulation, Judge Hsu again continued the trial date and extended certain cut-off dates, including the discovery cut-off date, but Judge Hsu did not alter the Pretrial Order's requirement that the discovery cut-off date was also a cut-off date for the hearing of any discovery motions. See Dkt. 50 (“Operative Scheduling Order”). Under the Operative Scheduling Order, the fact discovery cut-off date is September 6, 2024. Id. at 2. *2 Thus, combining the terms of the Operative Scheduling Order with the Pretrial Order, the deadline to hold a hearing on any disputes regarding fact discovery ran on September 6, 2024. See Pretrial Order at 2; Operative Scheduling Order at 2. On September 12, Plaintiffs and the County filed a Motion to Compel Deposition of the County under Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) (“Rule 30(b)(6)”) regarding a dispute as to whether the County was required to designate a representative and appear for a deposition regarding a single topic (Dkt. 52 at 1-2, “Motion”), with a Joint Stipulation (Dkt. 52 at 3-16) and supporting and opposing declarations and exhibits (Dkt. 52-1 and 52-2). Rule 16(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure directs district courts to enter scheduling orders that “limit the time to join other parties, amend the pleadings, complete discovery, and file motions.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(3)(A). Once issued, a scheduling order may be modified only upon a showing of good cause and with the judge's consent. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); see also Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing same). As the Ninth Circuit has explained, A scheduling order “is not a frivolous piece of paper, idly entered, which can be cavalierly disregarded by counsel without peril.” [Gestetner Corp. v. Case Equip. Co., 108 F.R.D. 138, 141 (D. Me. 1985)]. The district court's decision to honor the terms of its binding scheduling order does not simply exalt procedural technicalities over the merits of [plaintiff's] case. Disregard of the order would undermine the court's ability to control its docket, disrupt the agreed-upon course of the litigation, and reward the indolent and the cavalier. Rule 16 was drafted to prevent this situation .... Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 610 (9th Cir. 1992); see also L.H. v. Schwarzenegger, 2008 WL 268983, at *6 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2008) (“Rule 16 and the court's scheduling order are not optional directives; the court is bound by them.”); Tessera, Inc. v. Sony Corp., 2013 WL 97794, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 7, 2013) (“A scheduling order is not a mere suggestion or a trifle that can be disregarded when it becomes inconvenient; it is an order from the court. Just like any other order, the court expects compliance.”). In addition, the Local Rules for this district provide that “[a]ny application to modify an order entered pursuant to F. R. Civ. P. 16 shall be made to the judicial officer who entered the order.” C.D. Cal. Local Civil Rule (“L.R.”) 16-14. Accordingly, magistrate judges lack authority to issue discovery orders after the deadline set by district judges. See Watts v. Allstate Indemnity Co., 2012 WL 5289314, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 23, 2012) (magistrate judge does not have authority to amend district judge's scheduling order or to hear untimely discovery disputes); UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Disco Azteca Distribs., Inc., 2006 WL 2034689, at *3 (E.D. Cal. July 18, 2006) (“Of course, the magistrate judge is not empowered to modify the district judge's scheduling order.”). Here, as set forth above, Judge Hsu's Pretrial Order provides that the “cut-off date for discovery is not the date by which discovery requests must be served; it is the date by which all discovery, including all hearings on any related motions, must be completed.” Pretrial Order at 2 (emphasis added). The Pretrial Order emphasizes this provision by directing parties to ensure that they propound discovery and notice depositions sufficiently in advance of the cut-off date to allow for motion practice. Id. *3 The Operative Scheduling Order sets a fact discovery cut-off of September 6, 2024. The Motion was filed on September 12, 2024. The Motion asks for a further Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of the County as to a single topic. In the Motion, Plaintiffs do not contend that this is an expert deposition. Even were Plaintiffs to so contend, a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition would not be the appropriate vehicle to obtain expert discovery. See, e.g., Burton v. AbbVie, Inc., 2023 WL 4677024, at *4 (C.D. Cal. June 21, 2023) (“Rule 30(b)(6) witnesses are not required to provide expert testimony ....”); Trustees of Boston Univ. v. Everlight Elecs. Co., 2014 WL 5786492, at *4 (D. Mass. Sept. 24, 2014) (“A party may properly resist a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition on grounds that the information sought is more appropriately discoverable through ... expert discovery.”). Facially, the Motion, in seeking further fact discovery after the fact discovery cutoff has run, is untimely under Judge Hsu's operative orders. As such, the assigned magistrate judge lacks authority rule on the Motion. See Watts, 2012 WL 5289314, at *2; UMG Recordings, Inc., 2006 WL 2034689, at *3. For the foregoing reasons, the Motion (Dkt. 52) is DENIED as untimely under the Pretrial Order and the Operative Scheduling Order.