Martinez v. Tilton et al

Filing 50

STIPULATION and ORDER to Extend the Discovery Deadline for the Limited Purpose of Completing Deposition of Defendant D. Adams signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 1/2/2014. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5

William L. Schmidt, SBN. 206870
WILLIAM L. SCHMIDT, ATTORNEY AT LAW,
P.C.
377 W. Fallbrook Ave., Suite 205
Fresno, CA 93711
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 559.436.8163
Email: [e-mail]
Attorney for Plaintiff Martinez

6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

FRESNO DIVISION

11
12
JOHN R. MARTINEZ,

No. 1:10-cv-01501 SKO

13
14
v.
15
16

Plaintiff, STIPULATION AND ORDER TO
EXTEND THE DISCOVERY DEADLINE
FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF
COMPLETING DEPOSITION OF
DEFENDANT D. ADAMS

JAMES TILTON, et al.,

17

Defendants.

18
19

Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)(A), 16(b)(4), and 26(d) and Local Rules

20

143 and 144, the parties, through their counsel of record, agree to extend the discovery deadline

21

for fifteen days, up to and including January 10, 2014, for the limited purpose of completing the

22

deposition of Defendant D. Adams.

23

A scheduling order may be modified only upon a showing of good cause and by leave of

24

Court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A), 16(b)(4); see, e.g., Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975

25

F.2d 604, 609 (describing the factors a court should consider in ruling on such a motion). In

26

considering whether a party moving for a schedule modification has good cause, the Court

27

primarily focuses on the diligence of the party seeking the modification. Johnson, 975 F.2d at

28

609 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 advisory committee’s notes of 1983 amendment). “The district
1
Stipulation and Order Extending Discovery Deadline for Limited Purpose of Completing Party Depositions
(1:10-cv-01501 SKO)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

court may modify the pretrial schedule ‘if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the
party seeking the amendment.’” Id. (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 advisory committee notes of 1983
amendment).
Good cause exists to grant this extension because the parties require more time to take the
deposition of the parties. Discovery is scheduled closed on December 26, 2013, based on the
parties stipulation and subsequent order issued on November 26, 2013. (ECF No. 48.) The
parties have previously requested one other modification of the courts Court’s Scheduling Order
to conduct party deposition, but have not been able to schedule Defendant D. Adams during that
period because he now lives in Florida.
The parties have stipulated that Defendant Adams will be deposed telephonically due to his
limited availability. However, the earliest the parties and Defendant Adams can accommodate
this deposition is January 10, 2014. Thus, the parties request a sixteen-day extension of the
discovery deadline to complete Defendant D. Adams’ deposition.

14
Dated: December 23, 2013

Respectfully submitted,

15
KAMALA D. HARRIS
Attorney General of California
CHRISTOPHER J. BECKER
Supervising Deputy Attorney General

16
17
18

/s/ Diana Esquivel
DIANA ESQUIVEL
Deputy Attorney General
Attorneys for Defendants

19
20
21

Dated: December 23, 2013

WILLIAM L. SCHMIDT
ATTORNEY AT LAW, P.C.

22
/s/ William L. Schmidt
WILLIAM L. SCHMIDT
Attorneys for Plaintiff

23
24
25
26
27
28
2

Stipulation and Order Extending Discovery Deadline for Limited Purpose of Completing Party Depositions
(1:10-cv-01501 SKO)

1
2
3
4

ORDER
Based on the parties’ stipulation and good cause appearing, the discovery deadline is
extended to January 10, 2014, for the limited purpose of completing the Defendant D. Adams’
deposition.

5
6
7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

January 2, 2014

/s/ Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3

Stipulation and Order Extending Discovery Deadline for Limited Purpose of Completing Party Depositions
(1:10-cv-01501 SKO)