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: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
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