(PC) Dubrin et al v. Bonilla

Filing 71

ORDER LIFTING STAY; ORDER SETTING FURTHER SCHEDULING CONFERENCE, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 6/24/2015. Further Scheduling Conference set for 7/23/2015 at 09:30 AM in Bakersfield at 510 19th Street (JLT) before Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston. Telephonic appearances via CourtCall are authorized. (Hall, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DUBRIN et al.,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiffs,
v.
MICHAEL STAINER, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:11-cv-01484 AWI JLT
ORDER LIFTING STAY
ORDER SETTING FURTHER SCHEDULING
CONFERENCE

16

On February 4, 2015, the Court granted counsel’s stipulation to stay discovery and granted

17

time to advise the Court whether the parties wanted a settlement conference. (Doc. 61) The parties

18

indicated they were attempting to settle the matter and would notify the Court by the end of February

19

whether they wanted to engage in a court-sponsored settlement conference. (Doc. 60)

20

When that did not occur, the Court ordered the parties and counsel to show cause why

21

sanctions should not be imposed for their failure to comply with the Court’s orders. (Doc. 62) In

22

response, counsel filed a joint report indicating that the failure to file the notification was due to

23

calendaring error. (Doc. 63). Counsel explained they were continuing to be engaged in settlement

24

discussions. Id. at 2. They reported that they did not feel a settlement conference would be helpful at

25

that time. Id. Thus, the Court discharged the order to show cause and ordered, “no later than April 20,

26

2015, the parties shall submit statements indicating whether they believe, in good faith, settlement is

27

possible and whether they wish the Court to set a settlement conference.” (Doc. 64 at 2)

28

On April 20, 2015, defense counsel reported,
1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

The parties believe that settlement can be reached in this matter, and are still working
toward a negotiated settlement. CDCR has advised counsel for Defendants that it will
take an additional thirty days for CDCR to reach a decision once the Department
receives the additional information they have requested. Right now the parties do not
believe that a settlement conference would assist in resolving the matter, but should the
parties become unable to reach an agreement, they would like to be able to avail
themselves of the Court’s assistance in settling this matter.
(Doc. 65 at 3) On the same date, Plaintiff’s attorney filed a report which read,
There has been discussion of certain mechanics regarding how a settlement may be
effected in the most efficient manner. Information regarding restitution for each
plaintiff has been provided to plaintiff’s counsel. No final settlement number has yet
been agreed upon. Based on the negotiations to date, I would expect this case to settle
in the reasonably near future.
(Doc. 66 at 1-2)
On May 5, 2015, the Court issued its “Order re Stay” in which it required an additional status

11

report on May 22, 2015 and every 30 days thereafter. (Doc. 67 at 2) However, the Court admonished,

12

“Counsel are advised that the Court does not anticipate allowing the matter to remain stayed

13

beyond June 30, 2015, absent a showing of exceptional good cause. The parties are strongly

14

advised to resolve the matter or recognize the matter may not be resolved within that time

15

period.” Id. Nevertheless, on May 22, 2015, counsel reported,

16
17
18
19
20

On May 11, 2015, counsel for Plaintiffs submitted a new settlement demand,
which is being considered by the Defendants. Based on the terms of the latest
settlement demand from Plaintiffs, the parties believe that settlement can be reached in
this matter, and are continuing to work toward a negotiated settlement.
It will take additional time for CDCR to review the latest settlement demand
from Plaintiffs, and reach a decision as to settlement of this matter. At this point the
parties do not believe that a settlement conference would assist in resolving the matter,
but should the parties become unable to reach an agreement, they would like to be able
to avail themselves of the Court’s assistance in settling this matter.

21

(Doc. 68 at 2-3) Again, one month later on June 22, 2015, the parties filed nearly the exact

22

same report and added no additional detail to demonstrate that the good faith efforts were

23

being made to resolve the case. Thus, clearly, exceptional good cause has not been shown to

24

extend the stay. To the contrary, it appears that despite the Court’s strong admonition that it

25

would not extend the stay beyond June 30, 2015, the parties have failed to appreciate the

26

Court’s sense of urgency toward resolving this litigation either through settlement or through

27
28
2

1

trial. The Court is convinced that the stay is no longer in the interests of the parties1 and is an

2

impediment toward resolution. Thus, the Court ORDERS:

3

1.

The discovery stay is LIFTED;

4

2.

The Court sets a further scheduling conference on July 23, 2015 at 9:30 a.m.

5

No later than July 16, 2015, the parties SHALL file a joint report proposing dates for

6

completion of expert discovery, the pretrial conference and the trial.

7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9

Dated:

June 24, 2015

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1

Notably, one plaintiff has died during the pendency of this case and two have gone missing. (Doc. 66 at 1)

3