Bauer, et al. vs. Harris, et al.

Filing 30

STIPULATION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY CUT-OFF DATES AND ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 1/23/2013. (Yu, L)

1 C. D. Michel - S.B.N. 144258
Sean A. Brady - S.B.N. 262007
2 MICHEL & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
180 E. Ocean Boulevard, Suite 200
3 Long Beach, CA 90802
Telephone: [phone]
4 Facsimile: 562-216-4445
Email: [e-mail]
5
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

FRESNO BRANCH COURTHOUSE

11

15

BARRY BAUER, STEPHEN
WARKENTIN, NICOLE FERRY,
LELAND ADLEY, JEFFREY
HACKER, NATIONAL RIFLE
ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA,
INC., CALIFORNIA RIFLE AND
PISTOL ASSOCIATION
FOUNDATION, HERB BAUER
SPORTING GOODS, INC.,

16

Plaintiffs

12
13
14

17

vs.

18

21

KAMALA HARRIS, in Her Official
Capacity as Attorney General For the
State of California; STEPHEN
LINDLEY, in His Official Capacity
as Acting Chief for the California
Department of Justice, and DOES 110,

22

Defendants.

19
20

23

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 1:11-cv-01440-LJO-MJS
STIPULATION TO EXTEND
DISCOVERY CUT-OFF DATES AND
ORDER

24
25
26
27
28
1
STIPULATION AND ORDER

1

I.

2

INTRODUCTION

3

The parties, Plaintiffs Barry Bauer, Stephen Warkentin, Nicole Ferry, Leland

4

Adley, Jeffrey Hacker, National Rifle Association of America, Inc., California

5

Rifle and Pistol Association Foundation, Herb Bauer Sporting Goods, Inc.

6

(collectively “Plaintiffs”) and Defendants Attorney General Kamala D. Harris and

7

Chief of the Firearms Bureau Stephen Lindley (collectively “Defendants”), through

8

their respective attorneys of record, hereby jointly stipulate to a 60-day extension

9

of the currently scheduled discovery deadlines as set forth below.

10
11

II.

12

RECITALS/GROUNDS FOR RELIEF

13

Pursuant to Rule 16, a party may seek modification of a scheduling order,

14

including modification of a discovery cut-off date, “only for good cause and with a

15

judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). “Good cause” exists when a scheduling

16

deadline “cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the

17

extension.” Schaffner v. Crown Equipment Corporation, No. C 09-00284 SBA,

18

2011 WL 6303408, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2011) (citing Johnson v. Mammoth

19

Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). A party may establish good

20

cause by showing

21
22
23
24
25

(1) that [he or she] was diligent in assisting the court in creating
a workable Rule 16 order; (2) that [his or her] noncompliance with
a rule 16 deadline occurred or will occur, notwithstanding [his or
her] diligent efforts to comply, because of the development of
matters which could not have been reasonably foreseen or
anticipated at the time of the Rule 16 scheduling conference; and
(3) that [he or she] was diligent in seeking amendment of the Rule
16 order, once it became apparent that he or she could not comply
with the order.

26

Hood v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co., 567 F.Supp.2d 1221, 1224 (E.D. Cal.

27

2008) (citation omitted).

28
2
STIPULATION AND ORDER

1
2

WHEREAS the current deadline to complete all non-expert discovery is
February 27, 2013.

3

WHEREAS Plaintiffs requested that Defendants stipulate to extend the

4

written discovery cut-off deadline because Plaintiffs believe that additional time is

5

needed to remedy a good faith misunderstanding between the parties and

6

adequately and fairly complete the discovery process;

7

WHEREAS the parties originally believed at the time of the Rule 16

8

scheduling conference that non-expert discovery would be completed by the

9

current discovery cut-off deadline and worked together to prepare a comprehensive

10
11

proposed scheduling report for the Court’s convenience;
WHEREAS the parties encountered a good-faith misunderstanding as to the

12

appropriate scope of non-expert discovery in this case, which has resulted in

13

postponement of depositions and other issues and makes compliance with the

14

current discovery cut-off date unlikely;

15

WHEREAS the parties are currently and diligently negotiating in good faith

16

to resolve the misunderstanding and are currently in the process of re-evaluating

17

their prospective positions to reach an informal resolution and complete non-expert

18

discovery in light of developments;

19

WHEREAS the current non-expert discovery deadline is fast approaching

20

and is putting pressure on the parties, thereby creating a situation that may become

21

more adversarial than otherwise need be;

22

WHEREAS extending the deadline pursuant to this stipulation will allow the

23

parties an opportunity to negotiate informally to complete the discovery process

24

without further involvement with the court;

25

WHEREAS the parties make this request to extend the written discovery cut-

26

off date almost an entire month prior to its arrival, and only after diligent attempts

27

by both parties to avoid such, but ultimately concluding doing so is not feasible;

28
3
STIPULATION AND ORDER

1

AND WHEREAS, THE PARTIES STIPULATE AND AGREE TO THE

2

FOLLOWING:

3

1.

4

April 29, 2013.

5
6

To extend the non-expert discovery cut-off deadline 60 days, to

SO STIPULATED.
Dated: January 22, 2013

MICHEL & ASSOCIATES, P.C.

7
8
/s/ C. D. Michel
C. D. Michel
Attorney for Plaintiffs

9
10
11

Dated: January 22, 2013

Deputy Attorney General

12
13
/s/ Anthony R. Hakl
Anthony R. Hakl
(as approved on January 22, 2013)
Attorney for Defendants

14
15
16
ORDER

17
18
19
20

The Stipulation of the parties is accepted and the deadline for discovery of

21
22

non-expert witnesses is extended to April 29, 2013.

23
24
25
26
27
28

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
ci4d6

January 23, 2013

/s/

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
4
STIPULATION AND ORDER