Lawrence Young v. Reedley Community College, et al.

Filing 32

ORDER Electing Not to Adopt the Parties' 31 Stipulation to Extend Certain Discovery Deadlines signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 12/6/2012. (Martinez, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
LAWRENCE YOUNG,
11
12
13
14
15
16

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
REEDLEY COMMUNITY COLLEGE;
)
POLICE OFFICER F. URBA aka FELIPE
)
URIBE; & STATE CENTER COMMUNITY )
COLLEGE DISTRICT
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________ )

1:11-cv-590 GSA

ORDER ELECTING NOT TO ADOPT
THE PARTIES’ STIPULATION TO
EXTEND CERTAIN DISCOVERY
DEADLINES

17
18
19

On March 27, 2012, this Court issued its Scheduling Conference Order, setting all
discovery and trial-related deadlines and hearing dates. (Doc. 30.)

20

On December 4, 2012, the parties filed a Stipulation to Modify the Scheduling

21

Conference Order. More particularly, the parties seek to extend the deadlines for: non-expert

22

discovery, the disclosure of expert witnesses, the disclosure of rebuttal expert witnesses, the

23

expert discovery cut-off, as well as the filing of non-dispositive motions. (Doc. 31.)
For the reasons that follow, the Court will not adopt the parties’ stipulation. See Local

24
25

Rule 143(b) (Stipulations are not effective unless approved by the Court).

26

//

27
28

1

1

First, although the parties indicate the need to modify the dates because Plaintiff’s

2

military service has impacted his accessibility, no specific information regarding this situation

3

was provided to establish good cause for the modification request. Furthermore, the deadlines

4

proposed by the parties are internally inconsistent. For example, the parties request May 16,

5

2013, June 16, 2013, for the disclosure of rebuttal expert witnesses, and expert discovery

6

respectively, however, the proposed non-dispositive motion deadline is prior to that time on

7

April 26, 2012. Similarly, under the controlling scheduling order issued on March 27, 2012,

8

dispositive motions are scheduled for May 13, 2013. It is unclear to the Court how non-

9

dispositive and dispositive motions can be filed prior to the completion of all discovery.

10

Similarly, the parties indicate that the matter will remain set for trial on September 24,

11

2013, however, this will not be possible because the non-dispositive and dispositive motion

12

deadlines discussed above will need to be extended. Once this occurs, the pre-trial conference

13

and the trial will necessary need to be continued. The parties are advised that this Court requires

14

sixty days between the filing of dispositive motions, the pretrial conference, as well as the trial.

15

The parties may file another stipulation that incorporates the issues outlined above.

16

However, unless the parties offer another stipulation that is adopted by the Court, the Scheduling

17

Conference Order dated March 27, 2012, and all deadlines and dates referenced therein, remains

18

in effect. (Doc. 30).

19
20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
6i0kij

December 6, 2012

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2