Adewumi v. GHS Interactive Security, LLC et al.

Filing 23

STIPULATION and ORDER Extending F.R.C.P. Rule 26(a) Initial Disclosure Deadline. Pursuant to the stipulation of the Parties, the deadline for Initial Disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(1) shall be extended to February 26, 2018. The Court notes that the parties have failed to provide good cause for the continuance. The Court will grant the request in this one instance, but will not grant any further requests absent good cause. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc. 975 F.2d 604, 610 (9th Cir. 1992) (a scheduling order is not a frivolous piece of paper, idly entered, which can be cavalierly disregarded by counsel without peril.) signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 2/5/2018. (Herman, H)

1 JESSICA M. JEWELL, State Bar No. 274586
[e-mail]
2 CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE, INC.
1111 I Street, Suit 310
3
Modesto, California 95354
4 Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
5
Attorneys for Plaintiff ADESOJI ADEWUMI
6
7 JENNIFER A. SCOTT, State Bar No. 204234
[e-mail]
8 KIMBERLEY A. WORLEY, State Bar No. 119299
[e-mail]
9 KRONICK, MOSKOVITZ, TIEDEMANN & GIRARD
400 Capitol Mall, 27th Floor
10 Sacramento, California 95814
Telephone: [phone]
11 Facsimile: [phone]
12 Attorneys for Defendant GHS INTERACTIVE
SECURITY, LLC
13
14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

15

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, FRESNO DIVISION

16
17 ADESOJI ADEWUMI,
Plaintiff,

18
19

Case No. 1:17-CV-01117-DAD-BAM
STIPULATION AND ORDER
EXTENDING F.R.C.P. RULE 26(a)
INITIAL DISCLOSURE DEADLINE

v.

20 GHS INTERACTIVE SECURITY, LLC, a
Delaware Limited Liability Company,
21
Defendant.
22
23
TO THE COURT, ALL PARTIES, AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
24
25

Plaintiff ADESOJI ADEWUMI (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant GHS INTERACTIVE
SECURITY, LLC (“Defendant”) (collectively, “Parties”) stipulate pursuant to Federal Rule of

26
27
28
1
Case No. 1:17-CV-01117-DAD-BAM
STIPULATION AND ORDER EXTENDING F.R.C.P. RULE 26(a) INITIAL DISCLOSURE DEADLINE

1 Civil Procedure, Rule 261 (a)(1)(C) to extend the deadline from January 31, 2018 to February 26,
2 2018 for the Initial Disclosures required by Rule 26 (a)(1), and request that the Court enter an
3 Order that the Initial Disclosures required by Rule 26 (a)(1) are due by February 26, 2018.
4 STIPULATION
5

WHEREAS, the deadline for initial disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(1)(C) are due on

6 January 31, 2018, pursuant to Scheduling Order by the Court;
7

WHEREAS, the Parties agree to provide each other additional time to prepare the Initial

8 Disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(1);
9

WHEREAS, Rule 26(a)(1)(C) permits the Parties to stipulate to a due date for Initial

10 Disclosures (F.R.C.P. 26(a)(1)(C) (“A party must make the initial disclosures at or within 14 days
11 after the parties’ Rule 26(f) conference unless a different time is set by stipulation or court
12 order…”)(emphasis supplied));
13

NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to Rule 26 (a)(1)(C), the Parties jointly requet and

14 HEREBY STIPULATE that the deadline for Initial Disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(1) and the
15 current Scheduling Order for this action be extended to February 26, 2018.
16 DATED: January 30, 2018

CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE, INC.

17
18

By:

19

/s/ Jessica M. Jewell, Esquire
Jessica M. Jewell
Attorneys for Plainitff ADESOJI ADEWUMI

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Hereinafter, F.R.C.P. Rule 26 is referred to as “Rule 26”.

1 DATED: January 31, 2018
2

KRONICK, MOSKOVITZ, TIEDEMANN & GIRARD
A Professional Corporation

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

By:

/s/ Kimberley A. Worley, Esquire
(as authorized on 01.31.2018)
Kimberley A. Worley
Attorneys for Defendant GHS INTERACTIVE
SECURITY, LLC

1
2

ORDER ON STIPULATION
Pursuant to the stipulation of the Parties, the deadline for Initial Disclosures required by

3 Rule 26(a)(1) shall be extended to February 26, 2018. The Court notes that the parties have failed
4 to provide good cause for the continuance. The Court will grant the request in this one instance,
5 but will not grant any further requests absent good cause. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc.
6 975 F.2d 604, 610 (9th Cir. 1992) (a “scheduling order is not a frivolous piece of paper, idly
7 entered, which can be cavalierly disregarded by counsel without peril.”)
8
9 IT IS SO ORDERED.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Dated:

February 5, 2018

/s/ Barbara

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE