Haney v. Saldana, et al

Filing 119

SECOND Joint Application to Modify Pre-Trial and Trial Deadlines; Stipulation and ORDER, signed by Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder on 11/18/2013. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6

KAMALA D. HARRIS, State Bar No. 146672
Attorney General of California
THOMAS S. PATTERSON, State Bar No. 202890
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
JAIME M. GANSON, State Bar No. 230206
Deputy Attorney General
1300 I Street, Suite 125
P.O. Box 944255
Sacramento, CA 94244-2550
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]

7
Attorneys for Defendants Nelson and Saldana
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

MICHAEL G. YODER, State Bar No. 83059
E-mail: [e-mail]
STEPHANIE L. NOBLE, State Bar No. 260655
E-mail: [e-mail]
ERIKA M. RASCH, State Bar No. 275815
E-mail: [e-mail]
CHRISTOPHER S. WHITTAKER, State Bar No. 274699
E-mail: [e-mail]
O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP
610 Newport Center Drive, Suite 1700
Newport Beach, California 92660-6429
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

16
Attorneys for Plaintiff Bruce Patrick Haney
17
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
18
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
19
FRESNO DIVISION
20
21
22

BRUCE PATRICK HANEY,

23

Plaintiff,

24
25

1:04-CV-05935- AWI-SMS-PC
SECOND JOINT APPLICATION TO
MODIFY PRE-TRIAL AND TRIAL
DEADLINES; STIPULATION AND
ORDER

v.
R. SALDANA, et al.,

26

Defendants.

27
28

///
1
Joint App. Mod. Pre-Trial & Trial Deadlines; Stip. & [Proposed] Order (1:04-cv-05935-AWI-SMS)

1
2

JOINT APPLICATION
The parties hereby seek a further extension of the pre-trial and trial deadlines to permit the

3

parties to continue their good-faith settlement discussions, while staying expensive fact and

4

expert discovery until the parties can ascertain whether they will reach a settlement. The parties

5

have been diligent during the previously-granted two-month extension, engaging in productive

6

settlement discussions that find the parties optimistic that a settlement can ultimately be reached.

7

However, the logistics involved for each party’s counsel to obtain settlement authorization have

8

resulted in a slower-than-usual pace for the parties’ discussions. As a result, the parties require

9

additional time, and respectfully request that this Court modify the scheduling order as requested

10
11

herein.
District courts are required to construe and apply the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to

12

“secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action,” and may modify a

13

scheduling order for good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 1, 16(b)(4). Good cause exists when a deadline

14

cannot be met despite due diligence. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609

15

(9th Cir. 1992). A reviewing court’s inquiry focuses on the moving party’s reasons for seeking

16

modification. Id.

17

Here, good cause exists to modify the scheduling order because the parties have diligently

18

pursued settlement for the past two months, making significant progress while deferring (and

19

perhaps avoiding entirely) the costs of additional discovery. The parties are now much closer to

20

an agreement than they were in September, and a further extension is thus warranted to prevent

21

the parties from incurring additional discovery expenses (in particular, retaining experts and

22

conducting out-of-state depositions) which may prove needless if the settlement discussions result

23

in an agreement. Moreover, the period of extension sought for the discovery deadlines—

24

approximately three months—is appropriate given the complexities involved for Defendants in

25

obtaining settlement authorization and for Plaintiff in receiving notice of settlement figures

26

because of his incarceration in Los Angeles County Jail.1 If the parties are unable to reach an

27
1

28

California jails are administered by the counties, not the CDCR.
2

Joint App. Mod. Pre-Trial & Trial Deadlines; Stip. & [Proposed] Order (1:04-cv-05935-AWI-SMS)

1

agreement in the near future, the extension should allow the parties sufficient time to resume their

2

efforts to complete the remaining discovery necessary to prepare this action for trial.

3

The parties agree that good cause exists to modify the Scheduling Order. The parties have

4

obtained one prior extension in this matter, and they anticipate that the presently requested

5

extension will allow sufficient time for the parties to determine whether an agreement will be

6

reached. The parties stipulate to the pre-trial and trial deadlines delineated in the attached

7

stipulation and proposed order, and respectfully request that the Court modify the current

8

deadlines accordingly.

9

STIPULATION AND ORDER

10

The parties, through their respective counsel of record, hereby AGREE and STIPULATE

11

that the Court’s September 19, 2013 Amended Scheduling Order (ECF No. 117) shall be

12

modified as follows:

13

1.

14

The deadline to designate an expert and exchange any expert report(s) shall be
Tuesday, February 11, 2014;

15

2.

16

The Supplemental Expert Disclosure and Non-Expert Discovery Deadlines shall
be Monday, March 10, 2014;

17

3.

18

The deadline for filing any Non-Dispositive Motion shall be Monday, March 10,
2014;

19

4.

The Expert Discovery Deadline shall be Friday, April 11, 2014;

20

5.

The deadline for filing any Dispositive Motions shall be Friday, April 11, 2014;

21

6.

A Settlement Conference, if required, shall occur on Wednesday, May 14, 2014, or

22

on such other date as is convenient for the Court;

23

7.

24

The pre-trial conference shall be held on Wednesday, August 6 July 16 (/s/SMS),
2014, or on such other date as is convenient for the Court;

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///
3
Joint App. Mod. Pre-Trial & Trial Deadlines; Stip. & [Proposed] Order (1:04-cv-05935-AWI-SMS)

1
2

8.

A jury trial shall begin on Mon Wednesday, September 1 3(/s/SMS), 2014
(estimated 3-5 days), or on such other date as is convenient for the Court.

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
Joint App. Mod. Pre-Trial & Trial Deadlines; Stip. & [Proposed] Order (1:04-cv-05935-AWI-SMS)

1
Dated: November 12, 2013

Dated: November 12, 2013

/s/ Jaime M. Ganson (as authorized on 11/12/13)
_______________________
JAIME M. GANSON
Deputy Attorney General
Attorneys for Defendants
Nelson and Saldana

/s/ Stephanie L. Noble
_______________________
STEPHANIE L. NOBLE
O’Melveny & Myers LLP
Attorney for Plaintiff
Bruce Patrick Haney

2
3
4
5
6
7
IT IS SO ORDERED.
8
9

Dated: 11/18/2013

10

/s/ SANDRA M. SNYDER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5

Joint App. Mod. Pre-Trial & Trial Deadlines; Stip. & [Proposed] Order (1:04-cv-05935-AWI-SMS)