Beavers v. City of Turlock, et al.

Filing 33

STIPULATION and ORDER for Extension of Pretrial Motions Deadline, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 6/21/2018. Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties, and for some cause shown, the pretrial motion filing deadline is extended from June 29, 2018, to July 19, 2018. The parties are cautioned that the delay in filing pretrial dispositive motions may result in those motions not being resolved prior to the pretrial conference in this action. The parties also are cautioned that further modifications of the scheduling conference order will not be granted absent a showing of good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b). (Valdez, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

DALE L. ALLEN, JR., State Bar No. 145279
[e-mail]
KEVIN P. ALLEN, State Bar No. 252290
[e-mail]
ALLEN, GLAESSNER, HAZELWOOD & WERTH, LLP
180 Montgomery Street, Suite 1200
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
Attorneys for Defendants
CITY OF TURLOCK; GREGORY W. ROTON; DUSTIN
M. FERREIRA; GABRIEL GONZALEZ; and PAUL
INDERBITZEN

9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10
180 Montgomery Street, Suite 1200
San Francisco, California 94104

ALLEN, GLAESSNER, HAZELWOOD & WERTH, LLP

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12

RANDY BEAVERS,
Plaintiff,

13
14
15
16
17
18

Case No.: 1:16-cv-01878-LJO-BAM

v.

STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR
EXTENSION OF PRETRIAL MOTION
DEADLINE

CITY OF TURLOCK, a municipal
corporation, Turlock Police Department
Officers GREGORY W. ROTON,
Individually, DUSTIN M. FERREIRA,
Individually, GABRIEL GONZALEZ,
Individually, PAUL INDERBITZEN,
Individually, and DOES 1 THROUGH 50,
Jointly and Severally,

19

Defendants.

20
21
22
23

TO THE CLERK OF THE COURT, ALL PARTIES, AND THEIR ATTORNEYS
OF RECORD:

24

Plaintiff RANDY BEAVERS (“Plaintiff”) and Defendants CITY OF TURLOCK;

25

GREGORY W. ROTON; DUSTIN M. FERREIRA; GABRIEL GONZALEZ; and PAUL

26

INDERBITZEN (“Defendants”) hereby respectfully requests an approximate three-week

27

extension of the pretrial motion filing deadline: from June 29, 2018 to July 19, 2018.

28
1
235424.1

STIP. FOR MSJ DEADLINE
1:16-CV-01878-LJO-BAM

1

I.

PRIOR EXTENSIONS
On April 17, 2017, the Court issued a Scheduling Order in this case. The Order set various

2
3

deadlines, including: non-expert discovery (February 16, 2018); expert disclosure (March 23,

4

2018); rebuttal expert disclosure (April 20, 2018); expert discovery (May 18, 2018); pretrial

5

motion filing deadline (June 29, 2018); pretrial conference (October 17, 2018); and trial

6

(December 4, 2018).
The parties previously extended the fact discovery deadline until April 2, 2018 (Dkt. No.

7

22), in order to complete the depositions of Plaintiff and his wife, a third-party witness, and

9

Plaintiff’s treating physicians. Fact discovery is now complete.
The parties informally extended the expert disclosure date between themselves, until April

10
180 Montgomery Street, Suite 1200
San Francisco, California 94104

ALLEN, GLAESSNER, HAZELWOOD & WERTH, LLP

8

11

6, 2018.
On April 6, 2018, the parties requested extension of the rebuttal disclosure, expert

12
13

discovery, pretrial motion deadline, pretrial conference, and trial. (Dkt. No. 25). The Court

14

granted the request as to expert disclosure, rebuttal and expert discovery (Dkt. No. 26). It denied

15

it as to pretrial motion deadline, pretrial conference, and trial. (Dkt. No. 26).

16

II.

GOOD CAUSE FOR CURRENT REQUEST
Good cause exists to extend the pretrial filing deadline. The parties attended a settlement

17
18

conference before Magistrate Judge Grosjean on May 8, 2018. (Dkt. No. 29). While the matter

19

did not resolve on that date, lines remained open. On June 19th, both parties indicated to Judge

20

Grosjean their desire to continue discussions. Each party is going to speak with her Honor the

21

week of June 25th-29th. This is the best opportunity, to-date, the case has ever had at settling.

22

///

23

///

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///
2

235424.1

STIP. FOR MSJ DEADLINE
1:16-CV-01878-LJO-BAM

1

In order to facilitate these talks and maximize their chance of success, the parties

2

respectfully request extension of the pretrial motion filing deadline three weeks (from June 29th

3

to July 19th).1 Otherwise, the parties believe the attorneys’ fees and costs incurred from summary

4

judgment motion work will scuttle any possible settlement.

5
Respectfully Submitted,
6
7

Dated: June 20, 2018

9

By:

10
180 Montgomery Street, Suite 1200
San Francisco, California 94104

ALLEN, GLAESSNER, HAZELWOOD & WERTH, LLP

8

LAW OFFICES OF SANJAY S. SCHMIDT AND
LAW OFFICES OF PANOS LAGOS

11
12

Dated: June 20, 2018

13
14

ALLEN, GLAESSNER,
HAZELWOOD & WERTH, LLP
By:

15
16
17

/s/ Sanjay Schmidt
SANJAY SCHMIDT
PANOS LAGOS
Attorneys for Plaintiff
RANDY BEAVERS

/s/ Kevin P. Allen
DALE L. ALLEN, JR.
KEVIN P. ALLEN
Attorneys for Defendants
CITY OF TURLOCK; GREGORY W.
ROTON; DUSTIN M. FERREIRA; GABRIEL
GONZALEZ; and PAUL INDERBITZEN

18
19
20
21
22
23
1

24
25
26
27
28

A motion filed on Thursday, July 19th would mean a hearing date on Thursday, August 16th. That is
approximately 8 weeks before the October 17th pretrial conference. This differentiates this stipulation
from Lehman Bros. Holdings v. Golden Empire Mortg., Inc., No. 1:09-CV-01018LJOJLT, 2010 WL
2679907, at *3 (E.D. Cal. July 2, 2010), where the proposed extension only left two weeks between the
MSJ hearing and the pretrial conference.
This case is also different from Lehman because, if granted, it would be the first extension of the pretrial
filing deadline. The parties in Lehamn had already obtained one extension, and were attempting a second.
Lehman, supra, at * 1. It was this additional attempt (at extending the dispositive motion deadline) the
Court denied.

3
235424.1

STIP. FOR MSJ DEADLINE
1:16-CV-01878-LJO-BAM

1

ORDER

2

Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties, and for some cause shown, the pretrial motion

3

filing deadline is extended from June 29, 2018, to July 19, 2018. The parties are cautioned that

4

the delay in filing pretrial dispositive motions may result in those motions not being resolved

5

prior to the pretrial conference in this action. The parties also are cautioned that further

6

modifications of the scheduling conference order will not be granted absent a showing of good

7

cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b).

9
10
180 Montgomery Street, Suite 1200
San Francisco, California 94104

ALLEN, GLAESSNER, HAZELWOOD & WERTH, LLP

8

11

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

June 21, 2018

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4

235424.1

STIP. FOR MSJ DEADLINE
1:16-CV-01878-LJO-BAM