Phillips-Kerley v. City of Fresno Fire Department, et al.

Filing 80

ORDER Regarding 79 Stipulation to Continue Deadline for Initial Disclosures, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 7/28/2020. The Court DENIES the request to modify the Scheduling Order in this action without prejudice. (Rivera, O)

1 RONALD P. ACKERMAN (SBN 159692)
OSHEA V. ORCHID (SBN 298375)
2 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES LEGAL, LLP
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 660
3 Los Angeles, CA 90034
Telephone: [phone]
4 Telecopier: [phone]
5 Allison M. Schulman, Esq. (SBN 272081)
LAW OFFICES OF ALLISON M. SCHULMAN, APC
6 1055 W. Seventh Street, Suite 1920
Los Angeles, CA 90017
7 Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
8
Attorneys for Plaintiff,
9 DAVID PHILLIPS-KERLEY
10
11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OF CALIFORNIA

12

EASTERN DISTRICT

13 DAVID PHILLIPS-KERLEY,
14

Plaintiff,

15 vs.

Case No. 1:18-CV-438-AWI BAM
STIPULATION TO CONTINUE
DEADLINE FOR INITIAL
DICLOSURES; ORDER

16 CITY OF FRESNO, AND DOES 1
THROUGH 10, INCLUSIVE,
17
Defendants.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-1-

STIPULATION TO CONTINUE DEADLINE FOR INITIAL DICLOSURES; ORDER

1 TO THE COURT, ALL PARTIES, AND TO THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
2

Plaintiff DAVID PHILLIPS-KERLEY (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant CITY OF FRESNO,

3 by and through their respective counsel, herby stipulate as follows:
4

A.

WHEREAS the Scheduling Order provides that Rule 26 Disclosures are due

5 by July 31, 2020.
6

B.

WHEREAS Plaintiff requested additional time to prepare his disclosures and

7 documents.
8

C.

WHEREAS Defendant agreed to a continuance of the Rule 26 Disclosure

9 deadline to August 31, 2020, provided that Plaintiff does not serve discovery during this
10 time frame.
11

THEREFORE, IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED, as follows:

12

1.

The deadline for Rule 26 Disclosures shall be continued to August 31, 2020.

13

2.

The Parties shall not serve discovery requests until August 31, 2020.

14 DATED: July 27, 2020

LAW OFFICES OF ALLISON M. SCHULMAN

15
16

By:

17
18
19 DATED: July 27, 2020

/s/
Allison M. Schulman, Esq.
Attorneys for Plaintiff
DAVID PHILLIPS-KERLEY

BETTS & RUBIN

20
21
22
23

By:

/s/
James B. Betts, Esq.
Joseph D. Rubin, Esq.
Attorneys for Defendant
CITY OF FRESNO

24
25
26
27
28
-2-

STIPULATION TO CONTINUE DEADLINE FOR INITIAL DICLOSURES; ORDER

1

ORDER

2

Having reviewed the parties’ stipulation, the Court DENIES the request to modify the

3 Scheduling Order in this action without prejudice as the parties have failed to establish good cause
4 for the requested modification. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b).
5

Modifications of the Scheduling Order will not be granted absent a demonstrated showing of

6 good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b). Good cause may consist of the inability to comply with court
7 orders in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. Any such difficulties should be explained.
8
9 IT IS SO ORDERED.
10
11

Dated:

/s/ Barbara

July 28, 2020

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-

STIPULATION TO CONTINUE DEADLINE FOR INITIAL DICLOSURES; ORDER