Macias v. City of Clovis et al

Filing 86

ORDER DENYING Stipulation (Doc. 85) to Modify the Amended Scheduling Order (Doc. 44). signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 2/18/2016. (Herman, H)

1
2
3
4
5
6

James D. Weakley, Esq.
Bar No. 082853
Brande L. Gustafson, Esq. Bar No. 267130
Weakley & Arendt, LLP
1630 East Shaw Ave., Suite 176
Fresno, California 93710
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendants, City of Clovis, Officer Cesar Gonzalez, Officer Eric Taifane,
Officer Angel Velasquez, and Officer Steve Cleaver

7

11

Charles A. Piccuta (56010)
Charles Tony Piccuta (258333)
PICCUTA LAW GROUP, LLP
400 West Franklin Street
Monterey, California 93940
Telephone: (83 l) 920-3111
Facsimile: [phone]
e-mail: [e-mail]

12

Attorneys for Plaintiff, George Michael Macias, Jr.

13

16

Panos Lagos (61821)
The Law Offices of Panos Lagos
5032 Woodminster Lane
Oakland, CA 94602
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

17

Attorneys for Plaintiff, George Michael Macias, Jr.

8
9
10

14
15

18
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
19
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

GEORGE MICHAEL MACIAS, JR.,

) CASE NO. 1:13-CV-001819-BAM
)
Plaintiffs,
) ORDER DENYING STIPULATION TO
MODIFY THE AMENDED SCHEDULING
) ORDER
vs.
)
) (Doc. 44)
STEVE CLEAVER, CESAR GONZALEZ,
)
ERIC TAIFANE, ANGEL VELASQUEZ,
)
THE CITY OF CLOVIS and DOES 1-10,
) The Honorable Barbara A. McAuliffe
inclusive,inclusive,
)
)
Defendants.
)
THE PARTIES, through their respective counsel, have stipulated to modify the Amended

1

1

Scheduling Order (Doc. No. 44) to allow them to take the depositions for the following

2

individuals:

3

1) Sergeant James Boldt

4

2) Corporal Joshua Kirk

5

3) Mark King

6

4) Lawrence Brookter

7

5) Gilbert Ramirez, MD

8

6) Carlos Iniguez, RN

9

7) Dr. Ronald Kleyn

10

8) Roy Rodgers

11

9) Michael Olague

12

10) Joe Martin, DC

13

11) Greg Connor

14

12) Sergeant Curt Fleming

15

13) Sergeant Jorge Gomez

16

14) Sergeant Corporal Aranans

17

15) Jorge Gilblanco

18

The current deadline for non-expert discovery is February 5, 2016. The parties stipulate

19

that the non-expert discovery deadline be extended to March 25, 2016 just for purposes of

20

deposing the foregoing individuals.

21

THE PARTIES have further stipulated to modify the Amended Scheduling Order (Doc.

22

No. 44) as follows:

Current Date

New Date

23

Expert Witness Disclosure:

March 4, 2016

April 8, 2016

24

Supplemental Expert Disclosure:

March 18, 2016

April 22, 2016

25

Expert Discovery Cutoff:

May 2, 2016

May 20, 2016

26

Pretrial Motion Filing Deadline:

May 20, 2016

June 10, 2016

27

Pre-Trial Conference:

August 10, 2016

No Change

28

Trial:

September 27, 2016

No Change

2

1

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

2

Dated: February 16, 2016

3

WEAKLEY & ARENDT, LLP
By:

4
5
6

Dated: February 14, 2016

/s/ Brande L. Gustafson
James D. Weakley
Brande L. Gustafson
Attorneys for Defendants
PICCUTA LAW GROUP, LLP
THE LAW OFFICES OF PANOS LAGOS

7
By:

8
9
10
11

/s/Charles Tony Piccuta(As authorized on 2/14/16)
Charles A. Piccuta
Charles Tony Piccuta
Panos Lagos
Attorneys for Plaintiff
ORDER

12

The Parties’ Stipulation and Proposed Order to continue the discovery and pretrial

13

deadlines is DENIED. (Doc. 85). A scheduling order may be modified only for good cause.

14

Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b). The parties’ request for a schedule modification provides no explanation

15

as to why the existing discovery deadlines cannot be met. Thus, the parties’ request fails to

16

comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4). Further, Local Rule 144(d) cautions

17

parties against delaying until the last moment to seek extensions. While parties are required to

18

seek an extension of time well before the deadline has expired, the parties here waited until two

19

weeks after fact discovery closed to file a request to take fifteen additional depositions. Such

20

conduct is looked upon with disfavor and serves as an independent ground to deny the

21

stipulation. See Local Rule 144(d); In Hardy v. County of El Dorado, 2008 WL 3876329 (E.D.

22

Cal. Aug. 20, 2008). Lastly, the requested relief would unnecessarily burden the Court with

23

compressed discovery and motion deadlines. For these reasons, the parties’ stipulation is

24

DENIED without prejudice.

25

IT IS SO ORDERED.

26

Dated:

/s/ Barbara

February 18, 2016

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

27
28

3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

4