Nicholson v. Dossey, Badge #897

Filing 97

ORDER, signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 8/27/12: The Parties' Stipulated Request to Modify the Scheduling Order is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; and The parties may renew their request by proposing a schedule that comports with the specifications set forth in this order. (Hellings, J)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 AMYRA NICHOLSON, et al., CASE NO. 1:08-cv-01168-AWI-SKO 9 Plaintiffs, Consolidated Case: 1:11-cv-02041-AWISKO 10 v. 11 12 BAKERSFIELD POLICE OFFICER DOSSEY, BADGE #897, et al. 13 Defendants. 14 / 15 16 I. INTRODUCTION 17 On August 11, 2008, Plaintiffs Amyra Nicholson, minor C.W., minor R.S.W., and Brittany 18 Williams (collectively "Plaintiffs") filed a complaint against Defendants Dossey, Badge #897, City 19 of Bakersfield, Officer R. Slayton, Officer K. Ursery, Officer J. Cooley, Officer J. Martin, Officer 20 Ronnie Dulan, Officer J. Finney, Officer Scott Tunnicliffe, Sergeant Matt Pflugh, the County of 21 Kern, and "Dep. County of Kern H. Appleton."1 (1:08-cv-01168-AWI-SKO, Doc. 1.) Plaintiffs 22 asserted, inter alia, that they were subject to unreasonable searches arising out of events that took 23 place on July 29, 2008. 24 On May 29, 2012, this case was consolidated with Case No. 1:11-cv-02041-AWI-SKO. 25 (Doc. 94.) A new schedule for the consolidated cases was proposed by the parties, and a scheduling 26 order was issued on May 31, 2012. (Doc. 95.) On August 24, 2012, the parties filed a stipulated 27 28 1 Defendants County of Kern and H. Appleton were dismissed from the suit on April 26, 2011. (Doc. 43.) 1 request seeking to modify the scheduling order. Specifically, the parties assert that they need 2 additional time to conduct discovery related to Plaintiffs R.S.W. and Christina Watkins. (Doc. 96, 3 2:1-3.) The parties indicate that Plaintiff Amyra Nicholson passed away on August 14, 2012, thus 4 the discovery proceedings have been delayed due to her illness and death. (Doc. 96, 2:4-6.) 5 II. DISCUSSION 6 The parties assert that the modified schedule they propose will not, "in any way, affect the 7 trial date of August 20, 2013." (Doc. 96, 2:6-7.) Unfortunately, the dates proposed leave only two 8 days between the hearing of dispositive motions (June 24, 2013) and the pre-trial conference (June 9 26, 2013), which cannot be accommodated. 10 While the Court is willing to grant a modification to the schedule in light of the 11 circumstances, in proposing a schedule the parties must preserve the same number of weeks between 12 the dates for the hearing of dispositive motions, the pre-trial conference, and the trial dates. 13 Specifically, there must be approximately seven (7) weeks between the hearing date for dispositive 14 motions and the pre-trial conference and approximately eight (8) weeks between the pre-trial 15 conference and the trial. For example, to propose a schedule that preserves the trial and pre-trial 16 conference dates, a dispositive motion could be heard as late as May 8, 2013, but not June 24, 2013, 17 as proposed. If the parties desire to preserve the trial date, in formulating a proposed schedule, 18 they should work backwards from May 8, 2013, as the last day for dispositive motions to be heard. 19 20 III. 21 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 22 1. 23 CONCLUSION AND ORDER The parties' stipulated request to modify the scheduling order is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; and 24 2. 25 The parties may renew their request by proposing a schedule that comports with the specifications set forth above. 26 IT IS SO ORDERED. 27 Dated: ie14hj August 27, 2012 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?