Becker v. Sherman, et al.

Filing 123

Joint Stipulation and ORDER Amending Discovery and Scheduling Order, signed by Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson on 10/15/2019. (Production of Expert Report Deadline: 2/1/2020, Expert Depo due by 5/15/2020, Discovery due by 12/1/2019, Dispositive Motions filed by 6/15/2020, Depo Deadline: 4/1/2020)(Martin-Gill, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 LATHAM & WATKINS LLP Elizabeth L. Deeley (CA Bar No. 230798) elizabeth.deeley@lw.com Brittany N. Lovejoy (CA Bar No. 286813) brittany.lovejoy@lw.com Christopher J. Bower (CA Bar No. 301379) christopher.bower@lw.com David R. Derrick (CA Bar No. 316745) david.derrick@lw.com Catherine A. Rizzoni (CA Bar No. 322267) cat.rizzoni@lw.com Katrina E. Rodarte (CA Bar No. 318944) katrina.rodarte@lw.com 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, California 94111-6538 Telephone: 415.391.0600 Facsimile: 415.395.8095 Pro Bono Attorneys for Plaintiff Joseph “Cinnamon” Becker 11 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 13 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 14 FRESNO DIVISION 15 16 JOSEPH BECKER, 17 18 19 Plaintiff, v. WARDEN SHERMAN, ET AL., Case No. 1:16-CV-00828-AWI-JDP JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER AMENDING DISCOVERY AND SCHEDULING ORDER Judge: The Honorable Jeremy D. Peterson 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Defendants. 1 Plaintiff Joseph (“Cinnamon”) Becker (“Plaintiff”), and Defendants Wetenkamp, 2 Cartagena, N. Peterson, K. Loyd, M. Charkow-Ross, and J. Martinez (collectively, “Defendants”), 3 through their respective attorneys of record herein and without waiving any rights, claims, or 4 defenses they have in this action, enter into this stipulation, with reference to 5 the following circumstances: WHEREAS, on June 15, 2016, Plaintiff Joseph “Cinnamon” Becker originally filed this 6 7 matter. See Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint, ECF No. 1. 8 WHEREAS, on June 21, 2018, Plaintiff and Defendants filed a joint scheduling statement 9 anticipating that fact discovery “should remain open until July 1, 2019.” See Joint Scheduling 10 Statement, ECF No. 87 at 2. 11 WHEREAS, on June 27, 2018, the Court issued a scheduling order setting various 12 additional pretrial and trial dates for this matter. See Discovery and Scheduling Order, ECF No. 13 88. In that scheduling order, the Court set the deadline for the completion of fact and expert 14 discovery as November 1, 2019. See Id. at 3. 15 WHEREAS, the parties proceeded with discovery in response to that scheduling order. 16 WHEREAS, on September 4, 2018, Plaintiff served Defendants with Plaintiff’s Second 17 Set of Requests for Production (“the RFPs”).1 18 19 WHEREAS, on November 26, 2018, Plaintiff and Defendants reached an agreement regarding Defendants’ production in response to the RFPs. 20 WHEREAS, on September 21, 2018, Plaintiff served the California Department of 21 Corrections (“CDCR”) with a third-party subpoena compelling the production of documents (“the 22 Subpoena”).2 23 24 WHEREAS, on November 16, 2018, Plaintiff and CDCR reached an agreement regarding CDCR’s production in response to the Subpoena. 25 WHEREAS, on January 30, 2019, the parties filed a stipulated protective order governing, 26 among other things, Defendants’ production in response to the RFPs and CDCR’s production in 27 1 28 The California Department of Justice represents Defendants in this matter. 2 The California Department of Justice also represents CDCR. 1 response to the Subpoena. See Stipulated Protective Order, ECF No. 108. WHEREAS, in March 2019, Robert “Trey” Perkins, counsel for CDCR, went on temporary 2 3 leave because of the sudden death of his father. 4 WHEREAS, on April 11, 2019, Defendants notified Plaintiff that Defendants’ counsel, 5 Michelle Angus, was leaving the Department of Justice and was being replaced with new counsel. 6 WHEREAS, as of the date of this filing, Defendants produced materials in response to the 7 RFPs on the following dates: January 17th, February 25th, March 11th, April 8th, and April 19th, 8 2019. 9 WHEREAS, CDCR produced certain materials in response to the Subpoena on the 10 following dates: January 17th, February 25th, March 11th, April 8th, and April 19th, 2019. These 11 materials did not include certain other documents, however, including (i) the Electronically Stored 12 Information of CDCR personnel in response to the Subpoena; and (ii) the Prison Rape Elimination 13 Act (“PREA”) training and audit materials from Corcoran prison, where Plaintiff was housed, in 14 response to Plaintiff’s requests for production. 15 16 WHEREAS, on July 23, 2019, Plaintiff and CDCR reached an agreement regarding custodians and search terms for the Electronically Stored Information portion of the Subpoena. 17 WHEREAS, on August 6, 2019, the parties entered into a Joint Stipulation Regarding 18 CDCR’s Production of Electronically Stored Information and Modification of Discovery and 19 Scheduling Order, ECF No. 119, which required Defendants to complete its production of ESI in 20 response to the CDCR subpoena and production of all remaining responsive documents by 21 September 6, 2019. 22 23 24 25 26 WHEREAS, CDCR did not produce the Electronically Stored Information in response to the CDCR Subpoena until September 9, 2019. WHEREAS, CDCR produced the last of its remaining PREA training and audit materials for Corcoran on September 19, 2019. WHEREAS these productions were belated and larger in size than originally anticipated, 27 and thus additional time to review these productions and consider whether any additional 28 discovery requests are necessary is required. 1 2 WHEREAS, on October 14, 2019, Defendants authorized Plaintiff’s submission of this stipulation on their counsel’s behalf. 3 THEREFORE, WITH GOOD CAUSE SHOWN, the parties request to extend the deadline 4 for written discovery by one month to December 1, 2019. The parties further request to extend 5 the deadline by which Plaintiff’s expert reports must be served by two months, to February 1, 6 2020. These requested extensions are necessary to ensure that Plaintiff can review the entirety of 7 Defendants’ and CDCR’s productions, serve any additional discovery as needed, and that 8 Plaintiffs’ experts have sufficient time to complete their reports after receiving all discovery 9 productions. The existing deadline for fact depositions of February 1, 2020 set out in the Joint 10 Stipulation Regarding CDCR’s Production of Electronically Stored Information and Modification 11 of Discovery and Scheduling Order, ECF No. 120, remains unchanged. 12 IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties hereto through their 13 respective attorneys of record that having met and conferred regarding the respective calendars of 14 counsel that the Scheduling Order shall be amended as follows: 15 1. Deadline for the close of written fact discovery is: December 1, 2019; 16 2. Deadline for production of Plaintiff’s expert reports is: February 1, 2020; 17 3. Deadline for fact depositions remains February 1, 2020; 18 4. Deadline for production of Defendants’ expert reports is: April 1, 2020; 19 5. Deadline to complete expert depositions is: May 15, 2020; and 20 6. Deadline for dispositive motions to be filed is: June 15, 2020. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Dated: October 14, 2019 LATHAM & WATKINS LLP Elizabeth L. Deeley Christopher J. Bower David R. Derrick Catherine A. Rizzoni Katrina E. Rodarte By: /s/ Christopher J. Bower Christopher J. Bower Pro Bono Attorneys for Plaintiff Joseph “Cinnamon” Becker 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 Dated: October 14, 2019 XAVIER BECERRA Attorney General of California CHRISTOPHER J. BECKER Supervising Deputy Attorney General By: /s/ Robert M. Perkins, III (as authorized on Oct. 14, 2019) ROBERT M. PERKINS, III Deputy Attorney General Attorneys for Defendants Martinez, Wetenkamp, Charkow-Ross, Peterson, Cartagena and Loyd Attorneys for Third-Party California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation 1 ORDER 2 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 5 Dated: October 15, 2019 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 No. 205

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?