Feiger v. Smith et al

Filing 95

SECOND STIPULATION TO AMEND SCHEDULING ORDER; and ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 10/5/2017. (Lundstrom, T)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 Tanya E. Moore, SBN 206683 MISSION LAW FIRM, A.P.C. 332 North Second Street San Jose, California 95112 Telephone: (408) 298-2000 Facsimile: (408) 298-6046 Email: service@mission.legal Attorney for Plaintiff, Robert Feiger 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROBERT FEIGER, 12 13 14 15 16 Plaintiff, v. MARLENE SMITH, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 1:14-cv-01920-DAD-EPG (PC) SECOND STIPULATION TO AMEND SCHEDULING ORDER; ORDER 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SECOND STIPULATION TO AMEND SCHEDULING ORDER; ORDER 1 1 Plaintiff, Robert Feiger (“Plaintiff”), and Defendants, Natalie Clark, Marlene 2 Robicheaux-Smith, and Antoneya Graves (“Defendants,” and together with Plaintiff, “the 3 Parties”), together request that the Court amend the Scheduling Order as follows: 4 5 WHEREAS, the Parties previously requested an amendment to the Scheduling Order, which request was granted on July 14, 2017 (Dkt. 92); 6 WHEREAS, since the initial extension of the Scheduling Order deadlines, the Parties 7 have exchanged extensive written discovery, and the deposition of Plaintiff has been 8 conducted, although additional time to complete the deposition will be required; 9 WHEREAS, as a result of the discovery undertaken, the Parties have engaged in 10 settlement discussions and wish to fully explore and exhaust such settlement discussions before 11 expending additional time completing discovery and consuming judicial resources; 12 WHEREAS, communication of settlement offers is more time consuming than is 13 traditionally the case given the incarceration of Plaintiff, coupled with the necessary various 14 entities required on Defendants’ part to make, respond to, and where appropriate, authorize, 15 settlement offers. Such additional time frustrates the Parties’ abilities to promptly explore 16 settlement; 17 18 WHEREAS, based on the foregoing, the Parties wish to extend the current deadlines by thirty days while they explore settlement. 19 NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES, THROUGH THEIR RESPECTIVE 20 COUNSEL, HEREBY STIPULATE AND AGREE to amend the Scheduling Order as 21 follows: 22 Event Current Date New Date 23 Non-expert discovery cutoff November 10, 2017 December 11, 2017 24 Expert discovery cutoff January 31, 2018 March 2, 2018 Expert disclosures December 12, 2017 January 12, 2018 Rebuttal expert disclosures January 11, 2018 February 12, 2018 Dispositive motion filing deadline April 11, 2018 May 11, 2018 25 26 27 28 SECOND STIPULATION TO AMEND SCHEDULING ORDER; ORDER 2 1 2 3 The Parties additionally stipulate to continue the Discovery Status Conference set for October 24, 2017, to a date on or after November 27, 2017 at the Court’s convenience. All other requirements set forth in the Scheduling Order relating to the above shall 4 remain unchanged, including the pre-trial date of and trial dates. 5 IT IS SO STIPULATED. 6 Dated: October 3, 2017 7 /s/ Tanya E. Moore Tanya E. Moore Attorney for Plaintiff, Robert Feiger 8 9 10 MISSION LAW FIRM, A.P.C. Dated: October 4, 2017 11 LeBEAU – THELEN, LLP /s/ Thomas P. Feher Thomas P. Feher Attorneys for Defendant, Natalie Clark 12 13 14 15 Dated: October 3, 2017 16 RIVERA & ASSOCIATES /s/ Jonathan B. Paul Jonathan B. Paul Attorneys for Defendant, Marlene Robicheaux-Smith 17 18 19 Dated: October 3, 2017 WILLIAMS & ASSOCIATES 20 21 22 23 /s/ Martha M. Stringer Martha M. Stringer Attorneys for Defendant, Antoneya Graves 24 25 26 27 28 SECOND STIPULATION TO AMEND SCHEDULING ORDER; ORDER 3 ORDER 1 2 The Parties having so stipulated and good cause appearing, 3 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Amended Scheduling Order, dated July 14, 2017 4 (ECF No. 92), is amended as follows: 5 Event Current Date New Date 6 Non-expert discovery cutoff November 10, 2017 December 11, 2017 Expert discovery cutoff January 31, 2018 March 2, 2018 Expert disclosures December 12, 2017 January 12, 2018 10 Rebuttal expert disclosures January 11, 2018 February 12, 2018 11 Dispositive motion filing deadline April 11, 2018 May 11, 2018 7 8 9 12 13 14 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the telephonic Discovery Status Conference 15 currently set for October 24, 2017 is continued to December 6, 2017, at 2:00 p.m., in 16 Courtroom 10 before Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean. The Parties have leave to appear by 17 phone. To join the conference, each party is directed to call the toll-free number (888) 18 251−2909 and use Access Code 1024453. 19 conference, the parties may file a motion to compel further discovery responses. One week 20 before the discovery conference, the responding party may file a response to the motion to 21 compel. The motion should include a copy of the request(s) and any response to the request(s) 22 at issue. Unless there is a need for discovery prior to the discovery conference, motions to 23 compel will not be considered until the discovery conference. Motions to compel will not be 24 permitted after the discovery conference absent good cause. The parties should be prepared to 25 address all discovery disputes at the discovery conference. 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// Up until two weeks before the discovery SECOND STIPULATION TO AMEND SCHEDULING ORDER; ORDER 4 1 2 All other requirements set forth in the Scheduling Order relating to the above shall remain unchanged, including the pre-trial and trial dates. 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 6 Dated: October 5, 2017 /s/ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SECOND STIPULATION TO AMEND SCHEDULING ORDER; ORDER 5

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?