Mohrbacher

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 JACLYN MOHRBACHER, et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-00050-JD Plaintiffs,

ORDER RE DISCOVERY

v. ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFFS OFFICE, et al., ? Defendants. 10 Plaintiffs have asked to reopen discovery. Dkt. No. 369. The request is denied for lack of || good cause. The grounds for denial are straightforward. Plaintiffs’ main contention is that defendant || CFMG/Wellpath identified witnesses in pretrial disclosures who were said to be a surprise. But || Wellpath states, without dispute by plaintiffs, that the witnesses were disclosed in records a || Wellpath produced during discovery and well before the pretrial filings. See Dkt. Nos. 373 at 1, || 376. It may be that plaintiffs did not pick up on these witnesses, but that is on them and not || Wellpath. Plaintiffs’ lack of action is not a basis for re-opening discovery at this late date in a case 19 || that has been pending since 2018. See City of Pomona v. SQM N. Am. Corp., 866 F.3d…