Walker v. Fresno Police Department et al

Filing 54

ORDER re Defendants' exparte application for order modifying scheduling order. The current scheduling order is modified as follows: Discovery Cut-Off is extended to August 12, 2011; the Dispositive Motion Deadline is extended to September 30, 2011. Order signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 7/6/2011. (Timken, A)

1

James J. Arendt, Esq.
Michelle E. Sassano, Esq.

Bar No. 142937
Bar No. 232368

2
3
4

WEAKLEY & ARENDT, LLP
1630 East Shaw Avenue, Suite 176
Fresno, California 93710
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

5
6

Attorneys for Defendants, A. ALVAREZ, CHRISTOPHER ARANAS, PHILLIP CORONA,
LINDSAY DOZIER and L. LEIBEE

7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

HAROLD WALKER,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
)
vs.
)
)
CITY OF FRESNO, ET AL.,
)
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
____________________________________ )

CASE NO. 1:09-CV-01667-OWW-SKO
DEFENDANTS’ EX PARTE APPLICATION
FOR ORDER MODIFYING SCHEDULING
ORDER; DECLARATION OF MICHELLE
E. SASSANO IN SUPPORT THEREOF AND
ORDER
Complaint Filed: 09/21/09
Trial Date: TBA

19

Defendants A. ALVAREZ, CHRISTOPHER ARANAS, PHILLIP CORONA, LINDSAY

20

DOZIER and L. LEIBEE, hereby submit the following ex parte application for an order modifying the

21

Discovery Order/Scheduling Order, document number 41.

22

On February 28, 2011, Defendants served Plaintiff with discovery requests. Responses were

23

due on April 18, 2011. Unfortunately, no responses were received. A meet and confer letter was sent

24

requesting that Plaintiff provide responses by May 9, 2011. On May 13, 2011, only responses to special

25

interrogatories were provided.

26

On May 24, 2011, Defendants filed a motion to compel responses to the remaining outstanding

27

discovery requests. As of today’s date, Defendant Aranas has not received responses to the request for

28

production of documents. On June 23, 2011, the Court issued an order granting, in part, Defendants'
____________________________
Ex Parte Application for Order Modifying
Scheduling Order; Declaration of Michelle Sassano
in Support Thereof and Order

1

motion to compel. The Court ordered Plaintiff to serve a response to Defendant Aranas’ Request for

2

Production of Documents within thirty -three (33) days of the order. In light of the fact that Plaintiff has

3

not provided responses to the request for production of documents and provided late responses to all other

4

discovery requests, Defendants request modification of the operative scheduling order as follows:

5

Description

Current Date

New Date

6

Discovery Cut-Off

June 24, 2011

August 12, 2011

7

All other dates will remain as previously ordered.

8
9

Respectfully submitted,
DATED: June 23, 2011

10

WEAKLEY & ARENDT, LLP

11
12
By:
13
14

/s/ Michelle E. Sassano
James J. Arendt
Michelle E. Sassano
Attorney for Defendants

15
16

DECLARATION OF MICHELLE E. SASSANO

17

I, Michelle E. Sassano, declare as follows:

18

1.

I am an attorney at law, duly licensed to practice law before all the courts in the State of

19

California and the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. I am an associate

20

with the law firm of Weakley & Arendt, the attorneys of record for A. ALVAREZ, CHRISTOPHER

21

ARANAS, PHILLIP CORONA, LINDSAY DOZIER and L. LEIBEE. As such, I have personal

22

knowledge of the matters set forth herein, except those matters stated on information and belief, and

23

would so testify.

24

2.

25
26

This declaration is made in support of Defendants’ ex parte application for an order

modifying the Discovery Order/Scheduling Order, document number 41.
3.

Good cause exists for this request due to the fact that Plaintiff has not provided responses

27

to the request for production of documents that was served on February 28, 2011 and provided late

28

responses to all other discovery requests. The discovery cut-off in this case is June 24, 2011.
____________________________
Ex Parte Application for Order Modifying
Scheduling Order; Declaration of Michelle Sassano
in Support Thereof and Order

2

1

4.

On June 23, 2011, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to compel, in part, and ordered

2

Plaintiff to provide a response to the request for production of documents within thirty-three (33) days.

3

Defendants will not receive responses until after the discovery cut-off. Further, Plaintiff provided late

4

responses to all other discovery requests. Defendants are required to provide Plaintiff with forty-five (45)

5

days to respond to any discovery propounded. Therefore, the late service of responses to special

6

interrogatories prevented Defendants from providing any follow up discovery requests. Further,

7

Defendants have not had the opportunity to take Plaintiff’s deposition due to Plaintiff failing to provide

8

timely discovery responses.

9

5.

On June 17, 2011, I prepared a correspondence to Plaintiff requesting that he stipulate

10

to an extension of the discovery cut-off. I enclosed a proposed stipulation modifying the scheduling

11

order. The correspondence explained that the extension was necessary in order to complete all necessary

12

discovery. Unfortunately, at the time, we did not have a phone number to contact Plaintiff and were

13

unable to meet and confer by phone.

14

6.

On June 22, 2011, Plaintiff contacted me by phone. We discussed the stipulation and the

15

need for the extension of the discovery cut-off. It was my understanding that he was going to sign the

16

stipulation and drop it off at my office the same day. However, as of today, we have not received the

17

signed stipulation. The discovery cut-off is June 24, 2011. Therefore, this ex parte application is

18

necessary.

19
20
21
22

7.

Defendants believe the proposed dates will provide adequate time for Defendants to

complete any necessary discovery. This request is made in good faith and with no improper purpose.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct, to the best of my
knowledge, and that his declaration was executed on June 23, 2011, at Fresno, California.

23
24

/s/ Michelle E.Sassano
Michelle E. Sassano

25
26
27
28
____________________________
Ex Parte Application for Order Modifying
Scheduling Order; Declaration of Michelle Sassano
in Support Thereof and Order

3

1

ORDER

2
Defendants filed an ex-parte application on June 23, 2011, seeking an order modifying the
3
Discovery Order/Scheduling Order. The ex-parte application was served on Plaintiff by mail on June 23,
4
2011. (Doc. 52.)
5
In light of Plaintiff’s pro se status, the Court did not immediately act on Defendants’ request in
6
order to provide Plaintiff with an opportunity to receive and review Defendants’ request for a schedule
7
modification and to file any additional statement or opposition that Plaintiff deemed necessary. Plaintiff
8
did not file any opposition to Defendants’ request for a schedule modification.
9
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ request for a schedule modification. However,
10
because the modified discovery deadline overlaps with the dispositive motion filing deadline, this
11
deadline will also be extended. No trial date has been set in this case.
12
The current scheduling order is modified as follows:
13
Description

Current Date

New Date

Discovery Cut-Off

June 24, 2011

August 12, 2011

Dispositive Motion Deadline

August 19, 2011

September 30, 2011

14
15
16
17
IT IS SO ORDERED.
18
19

Dated:
ie14hj

July 6, 2011

/s/ Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
____________________________
Ex Parte Application for Order Modifying
Scheduling Order; Declaration of Michelle Sassano
in Support Thereof and Order

4