Martinez v. County of Tulare et al

Filing 36

STIPULATION and ORDER TO CONTINUE DISCOVERY DEADLINES. Amend Pleadings: 5/1/2017. Non-Expert Discovery Deadline: 6/23/2017. Expert Disclosures: 6/23/2017. Rebuttal Expert Disclosures: 6/28/2017. Expert Discovery Deadline: 7/21/2017. Mid-Dis covery Status Conference set for 4/13/2017, at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 7 (SKO) before Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto. Mid-Discovery Status Report shall be filed by no later than 4/6/2017. The non-dispositive motion deadlines, dispositive motio n deadlines, pretrial conference, and trial dates are hereby VACATED and shall be set at the Mid-Discovery Status Conference on April 13, 2017. In their Mid-Discovery Status Report, the parties shall propose dates for these events that are agreed to by all counsel. Order signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 2/14/2017. (Thorp, J)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 ARTURO J. GONZÁLEZ (CA SBN 121490) AGonzalez@mofo.com CAITLIN SINCLAIRE BLYTHE (CA SBN 265024) CBlythe@mofo.com ALEXANDRA E. LAKS (CA SBN 291861) ALaks@mofo.com MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 425 Market Street San Francisco, California 94105-2482 Telephone: 415.268.7000 6 7 Attorneys for Plaintiff MARIA EVA MARTINEZ 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 MARIA EVA MARTINEZ, Plaintiff, 13 14 15 v. Case No. 16-cv-01140-DAD-SKO STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE DISCOVERY DEADLINES TULARE COUNTY, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, and DOES 1-100, 16 Defendants. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE DISCOVERY DEADLINES CASE NO. 16-CV-01140-DAD-SKO 1 Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 143, Plaintiff Maria Eva Martinez and Defendant County of 2 San Diego (hereafter, the “parties”) through their undersigned counsel hereby stipulate as follows: 3 WHEREAS, the Court issued a Scheduling Order on December 2, 2016 (ECF 21); 4 WHEREAS, in the Scheduling Order the Court set the following discovery or discovery- 5 related deadlines: 6  Motions or stipulations requesting leave to amend the pleadings on February 1, 2017; 7  Close of Non Expert Discovery on February 24, 2017; 8  Expert Disclosures on February 24, 2017; 9  Rebuttal Expert Disclosures on February 28, 2017; 10  Close of Expert Discovery on March 24, 2017; 11  Mid-Discovery Status Report on February 2, 2017; 12  Mid-Discovery Status Conference on February 9, 2017; 13 WHEREAS, the County of Tulare made an offer of judgment, which Plaintiff has 14 15 16 accepted, resolving the dispute between the Plaintiff and the County of Tulare; WHEREAS, the Court issued an order inadvertently closing the case on January 18, 2017 and vacating all dates; 17 WHEREAS, the Court issued an order re-opening the case as to Defendant County of San 18 Diego, correcting the clerical error in the January 18, 2017 order closing the case, and inviting the 19 parties to propose new case dates and deadlines; 20 21 22 23 24 25 WHEREAS, the parties have met and conferred and agree that a short extension of the discovery and discovery-related dates is supported by good cause and is in the interests of justice. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties, through their respective attorneys and subject to the approval of the Court, hereby stipulate and agree as follows: The following discovery and discovery-related deadlines shall all be continued to the following dates: 26 1. Motions or stipulations requesting leave to amend the pleadings on May 1, 2017; 27 2. Close of Non Expert Discovery on June 23, 2017; 28 3. Expert Disclosures on June 23, 2017; STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE DISCOVERY DEADLINES CASE NO. 16-CV-01140-DAD-SKO 1 1 4. Rebuttal Expert Disclosures on June 28, 2017; 2 5. Close of Expert Discovery on July 21, 2017; 3 6. Mid-Discovery Status Report on April 6, 2017; 4 7. Mid-Discovery Status Conference on April 13, 2017; In the parties’ mid-discovery status report, they will update the Court as to their progress 5 6 with discovery and propose an agreed-upon full case schedule at that time (or their respective 7 positions on a full case schedule, if an agreement cannot be reached). By agreeing to the above continuation, the parties do not agree to forego any rights to seek 8 9 10 additional relief related to the other party’s delay or failure to participate in discovery. Dated: February 10, 2017 11 12 ARTURO J. GONZÁLEZ CAITLIN SINCLAIRE BLYTHE ALEXANDRA E. LAKS MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 13 By: /s/ Arturo J. González ARTURO J. GONZÁLEZ 14 15 Attorneys for Plaintiff MARIA EVA MARTINEZ 16 17 18 Dated: February 10, 2017 THOMAS E. MONTGOMERY COUNTY COUNSEL 19 20 By: /s/ Robert A. Ortiz (as authorized 2/10/2017) Robert A. Ortiz 21 22 Attorneys for Defendant COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO 23 24 25 // 26 // 27 // 28 STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE DISCOVERY DEADLINES CASE NO. 16-CV-01140-DAD-SKO 2 1 ORDER Based on the parties’ above-stipulation, the Court’s Scheduling Order (Doc. 21) is hereby 2 3 MODIFIED as follows: 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 EVENT CURRENT DATE Deadline for motions or stipulations February 1, 2017 requesting leave to amend the pleadings May 1, 2017 Non-expert discovery deadline February 24, 2017 June 23, 2017 Expert disclosures February 24, 2017 June 23, 2017 Rebuttal expert disclosures February 28, 2017 June 28, 2017 Expert discovery deadline Mid-Discovery Status Report Deadline Mid-Discovery Status Conference March 24, 2017 July 21, 2017 February 2, 2017 April 6, 2017 February 9, 2017 April 13, 2017 13 It is further ORDERED that the non-dispositive motion deadlines, dispositive motion 14 15 16 17 18 deadlines, pretrial conference, and trial dates are hereby VACATED and shall be set at the MidDiscovery Status Conference on April 13, 2017. In their Mid-Discovery Status Report, the parties shall propose dates for these events that are agreed to by all counsel. IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 20 NEW DATE Dated: February 14, 2017 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE DISCOVERY DEADLINES CASE NO. 16-CV-01140-DAD-SKO 3

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?