Neylon et al v. County of Inyo et al

Filing 68

STIPULATION and ORDER 67 GRANTING IN PART and DENYING IN PART Request to Extend Expert Witness Discovery Deadline and Dispositive Motion Filing and Hearing Deadline, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 2/26/2018. Expert discovery deadline continued to 5/8/2018. No other amendments to the case schedule are authorized. (Hall, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
350 University Avenue, Suite
200
Sacramento, CA 95825
TEL: [phone]
FAX: [phone]

12

A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
Carl L. Fessenden, SBN 161494
Daniel J. Bardzell, SBN 313993
350 University Ave., Suite 200
Sacramento, California 95825
TEL: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendants
COUNTY OF INYO; WILLIAM R. LUTZE;
RALPH DOUGLAS RICHARDS; and MICHAEL DURBIN
Mark E. Merin (State Bar No. 043849)
Paul H. Masuhara (State Bar No. 289805)
LAW OFFICE OF MARK E. MERIN
1010 F Street, Suite 300
Sacramento, California 95814
TEL: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
Attorneys for Plaintiff
MELISSA M. NEYLON

PORTER | SCOTT

13

UNITED STATED DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

14
15
16
17

MELISSA M. NEYLON AND SHAWN P.
NEYLON,
Plaintiff,

18
19

v.

20

COUNTY OF INYO, WILLIAM R.
LUTZE, RALPH DOUGLAS RICHARDS,
MICHAEL DURBIN, and DOES 1 to 50,

21
22
23

CASE NO. 1:16-cv-00712-AWI-JLT
JOINT STIPULATION TO EXTEND
EXPERT
WITNESS
DISCOVERY
DEADLINE
AND
DISPOSITIVE
MOTION FILING AND HEARING
DEADLINE;
[PROPOSED]
ORDER
GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING
IN PART
(Doc. 67)

Defendants.
___________________________________/

24

This Stipulation is entered into by and between Plaintiffs MELISSA M. NEYLON and

25

Defendants COUNTY OF INYO; WILLIAM R. LUTZE; RALPH DOUGLAS RICHARDS; and

26

MICHAEL DURBIN, through counsel of record. The Parties have conferred and agree to continue

27

the expert discovery deadline for 60 days, from March 9, 2018, to May 8, 2018. The Parties further

28

agree to extend the date to file a dispositive motion for 30 days, from April 30, 2018 to May 30,
{01779043.DOCX}

1

JOINT STIPULATION TO EXTEND EXPERT DISCOVERY DEADLINE AND DISPOSITIVE
MOTION FILING AND HEARING DEADLINE; [PROPOSED] ORDER

1

2018 and the date for dispositive motions to be heard for 30 days, from June 11, 2018 to July 11,

2

2018.

3

The parties have good cause to request an extension for the expert discovery deadline

4

because the parties are working cooperatively to schedule expert deposition(s) but need additional

5

time as a result of scheduling issues involving both counsel and the experts. Therefore, all parties

6

join in requesting an extension of the expert discovery deadline.

7

The parties also have good cause to extend the date to file a dispositive motion and have such

8

motions heard because of the additional time required to complete expert deposition(s). Therefore,

9

all parties join in requesting an extension of the date to file a dispositive motion and have such

10

motions heard.

12

parties stipulate to extend the date to file a dispositive motion for 30 days to May 30, 2018 and the

13

PORTER | SCOTT

The parties stipulate to extend the expert discovery deadline for 60 days to May 8, 2018. The

date for dispositive motions to be heard for 30 days to July 11, 2018.

350 University Avenue, Suite
200
Sacramento, CA 95825
TEL: [phone]
FAX: [phone]

11

14

Trial is presently scheduled to commence on October 2, 2018.

15
16
17

IT IS SO STIPULATED.
Dated: February 22, 2018

PORTER SCOTT
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

18
19

By

20
21
22

Dated: February 22, 2018

/s/Carl L. Fessenden
Carl L. Fessenden
Dan J. Bardzell
Attorneys for Defendants

LAW OFFICE OF MARK E. MERIN

23

By

24
25
26

/s/Mark E. Merin (authorized 02/22/18)
Mark E. Merin
Paul H. Masuhara
Attorneys for Plaintiff MELISSA M.
NEYLON

27
28
{01779043.DOCX}

2

JOINT STIPULATION TO EXTEND EXPERT DISCOVERY DEADLINE AND DISPOSITIVE
MOTION FILING AND HEARING DEADLINE; [PROPOSED] ORDER

[PROPOSED] ORDER

1
2

The parties report that they’ve had difficulty scheduling depositions of their experts. They

3

don’t explain why this difficulty exists, the specific cause of the difficulty or when they

4

discovered they would be unable to complete the expert discovery as required by the scheduling

5

order. Notably, in their joint scheduling report, they sought only 60 days to complete expert

6

discovery (Doc. 24 at 4) and the Court granted this request (Doc. 28 at 3). Now they seek an

7

additional 60 days for expert discovery.

to decide dispositive motions (eight weeks from the filing of the motion is needed) or sufficient

10

time between the pretrial conference and the trial (eight weeks is needed for the filing and decision

11

on the in limine motions). Consequently, the proposed schedule is unworkable for the Court.

12
PORTER | SCOTT

The parties propose an amended schedule but fail to provide sufficient time for Judge Ishii

9

350 University Ave., Suite 200
Sacramento, CA 95825
TEL: [phone]
FAX: [phone]

8

Thus, the Court ORDERS:

13

1. The stipulation to amend the case schedule is GRANTED in PARTand DENIED in

14

PART as follows:

15
16

a. The expert discovery deadline is continued to May 8, 2018;
2.

Absolutely no other amendments to the case schedule are authorized.

17
18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

February 26, 2018

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
{01779043.DOCX}

1

JOINT STIPULATION TO EXTEND EXPERT WITNESS DISCLOSURE AND
REBUTTAL/SUPPLEMENTAL DEADLINE; [PROPOSED] ORDER