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)
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?