Case 2:21-cv-06161-ODW-JC Document 82 Filed 03/17/23 Page 1 of 7 Page ID #:651

O 1

2 3 4 5 6 7

8 United States District Court 9 Central District of California

10

11 CHRISTOPHER AUSTEN SCOTT, Case № 2:21-cv-06161-ODW (JCx)

12 Plaintiff,

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR

13 v.

LEAVE TO FILE THIRD AMENDED

14 CITY OF LOS ANGELES et al., COMPLAINT [52]

15 Defendants.

16 17 I. INTRODUCTION 18 Plaintiff Christopher Austen Scott moves for leave to file a Third Amended 19 Complaint (“TAC”). (Mot. Leave Am. (“Mot.” or “Motion”), ECF No. 52.) For the 20 reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS Scott’s Motion.1 21 II. BACKGROUND 22 On July 30, 2021, Scott filed this action against the City of Los Angeles 23 (“City”), Chief Michel Moore in his individual and official capacities, and Does 1 24 through 10 of the Los Angeles Police Department (“LAPD”). (Compl., ECF No. 1.) 25 In the Complaint, Scott asserted nine causes of action arising from the LAPD’s use of 26 excessive force while searching and arresting Scott. (See id.) Among other things, 27

28 1 Having carefully considered the papers filed in connection with the Motion, the Court deemed the matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-15. Case 2:21-cv-06161-ODW-JC Document 82 Filed 03/17/23 Page 2 of 7 Page ID #:652

1 Scott alleged that the Defendants, including Does 1 through 10, were negligent in 2 “[t]he failure to provide prompt medical care to [Scott].” (Id. ¶¶ 110–124.) After the 3 Court granted in part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and Strike, Scott filed the First 4 Amended Complaint. (Order Granting in Part Mot. Dismiss and Strike, ECF No. 33; 5 First Am. Compl. (“FAC”), ECF No. 34.) 6 On June 13, 2022, the Court issued a Scheduling and Case Management Order. 7 (Scheduling Order, ECF No. 38.) The Court set September 19, 2022, as the deadline 8 to hear motions to amend pleadings, (id. at 24), and explained that any requests to 9 amend pleadings after the deadline would be subject to review under Johnson v. 10 Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604 (9th Cir. 1992), (id. at 5). On August 2, 11 2022, pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, the Court granted Scott leave to file his 12 Second Amended Complaint. (Stip., ECF No. 44; Order Granting Stip. ECF No. 45.) 13 On August 3, 2022, Scott filed the Second Amended Complaint. (Second Am. 14 Compl. (“SAC”), ECF No. 46.) 15 On August 9, 2022, Scott served his First Set of Interrogatories and Requests 16 for Production of Documents on the City. (Mot. 13.) The City requested multiple 17 extensions to respond to Scott’s discovery requests, which Scott granted. (Id.) On 18 November 18, 2022, Scott received the City’s interrogatory responses and a document 19 production of more than 1,120 pages of documents, including multiple hour-long 20 videos. (Id.) During the course of Scott’s counsel’s review of this production, 21 counsel identified the individuals who allegedly denied Scott medical care, as well as 22 facts indicating that the denial of medical care rose to the level of a constitutional 23 violation, rather than mere negligence. (Id. at 14.) 24 On January 13, 2023, Scott’s counsel emailed defense counsel with the 25 proposed Third Amended Complaint and requested that the City stipulate to its filing. 26 (Id.) On January 26, 2023, the parties met and conferred regarding Scott’s request, 27 and the City indicated that it would not stipulate to the filing of the proposed Third 28 Amended Complaint. (Id.) On January 27, 2023, Scott filed the instant motion,

2 Case 2:21-cv-06161-ODW-JC Document 82 Filed 03/17/23 Page 3 of 7 Page ID #:653

1 requesting leave to file a Third Amended Complaint in order to (1) name individual 2 defendants who directly participated in the denial of adequate medical care to Scott 3 following his arrest, and (2) assert as a separate cause of action a Fourteenth 4 Amendment claim for the denial of adequate medical care. (Id. at 5.) The Motion is 5 fully briefed. (Opp’n, ECF No. 56; Reply, ECF No. 71.) 6 III. LEGAL STANDARD 7 When a party moves to amend a pleading beyond the deadline set in the 8 scheduling order, the party must first show “good cause” for relief from the deadline. 9 Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); Johnson, 975 F.2d at 607–08. Federal Rule of Civil 10 Procedure (“Rule”) “16(b)’s ‘good cause’ standard primarily considers the diligence 11 of the party seeking the amendment.” Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. “[C]arelessness is 12 not compatible with a finding of diligence and . . . [i]f [the moving] party was not 13 diligent, the inquiry should end.” Id. (citations omitted). Only when a party first 14 satisfies the Rule 16 good cause standard need a court consider whether amendment is 15 proper under Rule 15. See id. at 608. 16 Under Rule 15, courts analyze the following “Foman factors” to determine 17 whether leave to amend should be granted: (1) undue delay; (2) bad faith; (3) dilatory 18 motive; (4) repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed; 19 (5) undue prejudice to the opposing party; and (6) futility of the amendment. Foman 20 v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). Courts apply these factors with “extreme 21 liberality” favoring amendment under Rule 15. United States v. Webb, 655 F.2d 977, 22 979 (9th Cir. 1981). However, the moving party cannot “appeal to the liberal 23 amendment procedures afforded by Rule 15” unless it first “satisf[ies] the more 24 stringent ‘good cause’ showing required under Rule 16.” AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. 25 Dialysist W., Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 952 (9th Cir. 2006) (emphasis omitted). 26 IV. DISCUSSION 27 The Court considers whether leave to amend is appropriate under Rules 15 and 28 16. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15, 16.

3 Case 2:21-cv-06161-ODW-JC Document 82 Filed 03/17/23 Page 4 of 7 Page ID #:654

1 A. Rule 16 2 Scott argues there is good cause to allow him to amend his pleadings after the 3 September 19, 2022 deadline set by the Court in the Scheduling Order. (Mot. 12–15.) 4 Scott contends that he acted diligently and, through the discovery process, recently 5 discovered the identities of certain Doe defendants and facts indicating that his denial 6 of medical care went beyond mere negligence and rose to the level of a constitutional 7 claim. (See id. at 14.) 8 Rule 16 requires the moving party to demonstrate good cause to modify the 9 case schedule to permit an otherwise late motion for leave to amend. See Fed. R. Civ. 10 P. 16(b)(4); Johnson, 975 F.2d at 607–08. The moving party can show good cause 11 through “changes in law or newly discovered evidence.” Del Rio v. Virgin Am., Inc., 12 No. 2:18-cv-1063-GW (SKx), 2019 WL 210957, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 3, 2019). 13 However, “that justification erodes . . . when a Plaintiff delays amending his 14 complaint beyond the time he could have discovered the grounds for amendment 15 through the exercise of reasonable diligence.” Id. (emphasis omitted). 16 Here, Scott received a production of documents from the City on November 18, 17 2022, which contained more than 1,120 pages of documents, including multiple hour- 18 long videos. (Mot. 13.) This production identified the individuals—previously named 19 as Doe defendants—who allegedly denied Scott adequate medical care. (Decl. Emily 20 C. Barbour ISO Mot. (“Barbour Decl.”) ¶ 10, ECF No. 52-1.) The production also 21 included information regarding those individuals’ knowledge of Scott’s injuries at the 22 time. (Id.) Accordingly, Scott did not have reason to seek the amendments proposed 23 in the Third Amended Complaint until after he received and reviewed the City’s 24 production. On the other hand, Defendants knew from Scott’s prior pleadings that he 25 sought to name these individuals in this action, so it should be no surprise to 26 Defendants that now, after discovery revealed the identities of these individuals, Scott 27 seeks to amend. 28

4 Case 2:21-cv-06161-ODW-JC Document 82 Filed 03/17/23 Page 5 of 7 Page ID #:655

1 Moreover, the Court finds that Scott was reasonably diligent in reviewing the 2 production and moving to amend once he discovered the identities of the officers and 3 the factual basis for his constitutional due process claim. Scott received the 4 production just before the Thanksgiving holiday. (Mot. 13.) The production was 5 voluminous and included more than 1,120 pages of documents and multiple hour-long 6 videos. (Id.) Scott’s counsel diligently reviewed the production and, despite three 7 intervening holidays, contacted opposing counsel early in the new year to discuss 8 Scott’s proposed Third Amended Complaint. (Id. at 13–14.) The day after the parties 9 met and conferred regarding the proposed Third Amended Complaint and Defendants 10 stated that they would not stipulate to its filing, Scott filed the instant Motion. (Id. 11 at 14.) 12 Defendants argue that Scott has not been diligent in discovery because he did 13 not serve his first discovery requests until more than a year after filing the Complaint. 14 (Opp’n 7.) However, that argument ignores that much of this delay was due to 15 stipulated extensions of time for Defendants to respond to the Complaint and settling 16 the pleadings. (See Stips. Extend, ECF Nos. 15, 16; Order Granting in Part Mot. 17 Dismiss and Strike.) 18 Finally, the Court finds that the significance of Scott’s proposed new cause of 19 action—a Fourteenth Amendment claim for the denial of adequate medical care— 20 weighs in favor of permitting amendment here. 21 Accordingly, the Court concludes that Scott has shown good cause under 22 Rule 16(b). 23 B. Rule 15 24 Scott also argues that leave to amend should be granted pursuant to Rule 15. 25 (Mot. 8–12.) 26 The Court finds that the balance of the Foman factors weigh in favor of 27 granting leave to amend. First, as discussed above, Scott diligently sought to amend 28 his pleadings following the discovery of new evidence. Thus, as to the first three

5 Case 2:21-cv-06161-ODW-JC Document 82 Filed 03/17/23 Page 6 of 7 Page ID #:656

1 Foman factors, Scott did not act with undue delay, bad faith, or a dilatory motive. 2 Foman, 371 U.S. at 182. Additionally, considering the fourth factor, although Scott 3 previously amended his pleadings, the proposed amendments at issue here are not the 4 result of Scott’s failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed. Id. 5 Rather, Scott’s proposed amendments stem from the discovery of new evidence. 6 The fifth Foman factor—undue prejudice to the opposing party—is the 7 weightiest factor. See Eminence Cap., LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 8 (9th Cir. 2003) (finding that “prejudice to the opposing party . . . carries the greatest 9 weight” among the Foman factors). Here, Defendants contend that the newly-named 10 individuals would be prejudiced by their belated addition to this case and, further, that 11 Scott’s proposed amendments would prejudice Defendants by necessitating additional 12 discovery. (See Opp’n 8–10.) However, the Court finds that any prejudice caused by 13 Scott’s amended pleadings is limited given that discovery in this matter remains 14 open.2 (See Scheduling Order 24); see also Williams v. City of Long Beach, No. 2:18- 15 cv-01069-AB (JCx), 2020 WL 5983256, at *4 (C.D. Cal. July 21, 2020) (finding 16 defendants were not prejudiced by proposed amendments to pleadings in part because 17 discovery was open). Additionally, Scott’s initial Complaint included allegations that 18 Does 1 through 10 of the LAPD were negligent in “[t]he failure to provide prompt 19 medical care to [Scott].” (Compl. ¶¶ 110–24.) Thus, even prior to Scott’s proposed 20 amendments, the parties had reason to pursue discovery concerning Defendants’ 21 provision of medical care to Scott following his arrest. 22 As to the final Foman factor, the parties do not contend that Scott’s proposed 23 amendments would be futile. (See generally Opp’n.) Thus, the sixth factor does not 24 weigh against granting leave to amend. Foman, 371 U.S. at 182. 25 Accordingly, the Court concludes that the balance of the Foman factors weigh 26 in favor of granting leave to amend under Rule 15. 27 2 To the extent that Defendants believe Scott’s Third Amended Complaint necessitates an extension 28 of the discovery deadlines, they may seek an extension from the Court. Such a request must be supported by good cause through a concrete showing. (See Scheduling Order at 1.)

6 Cage 2:21-cv-06161-ODW-JC Document 82 Filed 03/17/23 Page 7 of7 Page ID #:657

1 Vv. CONCLUSION 2 For the reasons discussed above, the Court GRANTS Scott’s Motion for Leave 3 || to File a Third Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 52.) By March 23, 2023, Scott shall 4 || file the Third Amended Complaint, which Scott submitted as Exhibit A to the Barbour 5 || Declaration. (Barbour Decl. Ex. A, ECF No, 52-2.) 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 March 17, 2023 □□ 10 <4 Giedliot

OTIS D. IGHT, I

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28