Diaz v. City of Merced et al

Filing 14

STIPULATION and ORDER TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER, signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 2/5/2024. (Kusamura, W)

1
2
3
4
5
6

LONGYEAR & LAVRA, LLP
Van Longyear, CSB No.: 84189
Nicole M. Cahill, CSB No.: 287165
Denny Yu, CSB No.: 345213
555 University Avenue, Suite 280
Sacramento, CA 95825
Phone: [phone]
Facsimile: 916-974-8510
Emails: [e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

7
8
9

Attorneys for Defendants,
City of Merced, Cody McComb,
Nicholas de Jong [erroneously sued herein as “Nicolas Dejon”]
And Dominic Saelee

10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA FRESNO DIVISION

12
13
14
15
16
17
18

ARMANDO DIAZ,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
CITY OF MERCED, CODY McCOMB,
)
NICOLAS DEJON, DOMINIC SAELEE, and )
DOES 1-15, inclusive
)
)
Defendants.
)
)

Case No.: 1:23-CV-00065-JLT-SKO
STIPULATION TO MODIFY
SCHEDULING ORDER AND ORDER
(Doc. 13)

19
20

Pursuant to Local Rule 143 the parties stipulate and ask the Court to Order that the

21

scheduling order entered on May 30, 2023 (ECF No. 11) be modified by extending the discovery

22

deadlines.

23

“The district court is given broad discretion in supervising the pretrial phase of litigation.”

24

Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir. 1992) (citation and internal

25

quotation marks omitted). Rule 16(b) provides that “[a] schedule may be modified only for good

26

cause and with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). “The schedule may be modified ‘if it

27

cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.’” Zivkovic v.

28

Southern California Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Johnson, 975 F.2d at
STIPULATION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER AND ORDER
-1-

1

607).

2

The parties have been diligent in its discovery efforts. The plaintiff’s deposition was taken

3

on December 12, 2023, and Defendants McComb, Saelee, and Dejong’s depositions are currently

4

set for February 13, 2024. (Declaration of Denny Yu (“Yu Decl.”) ¶ 5 and 6.) Defendants served

5

written discovery to Plaintiff in September of 2023, with Plaintiff providing responses in November.

6

(Yu Decl. ¶ 7.) Defendants also subpoenaed records from the Sheriff’s office related to Plaintiff’s

7

arrest, and has also subpoenaed medical records. Defendants are currently waiting on subpoenaed

8

medical records from the Sheriff’s Office third party medical vendor, Wellpath. (Yu Decl. ¶ 8.)

9

Defendants also plan to depose two witnesses disclosed by Plaintiff on January 26, 2024.

10

(Yu Decl. ¶ 9). The parties are also currently engaged in written discovery. Plaintiff served written

11

discovery to the City and all three individual defendants on November 20, 2023. (Yu. Decl. ¶ 9.)

12

Due to the holidays and vacation schedules, Defendant was granted a discovery extension, with

13

responses currently due on February 5, 2024. (Yu Decl. ¶ 9.)

14

Good cause exists for this extension. The parties have been diligent in conducting discovery,

15

including written discovery, the deposition of the Plaintiff, and setting depositions of the individual

16

defendants. Defendant also intends to depose two recently identified witnesses, which will require

17

working around both parties’ schedules and the witnesses’ schedules. (Yu Decl. ¶ 10.)

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

The parties met and conferred on this issue and propose to modify the scheduling order as
follows:
Non-Expert Discovery Deadline:
•

Friday, May 24, 2024 (was March 25, 2024 [ECF 11])

Expert Disclosures Deadline:
•

Monday, June 24, 2024 (was April 24, 2024 [ECF 11])

Rebuttal Expert Disclosures Deadline:
•

Tuesday, July 24, 2024 (was May 24, 2024 [ECF 11])

Expert Discovery to close on:
•

Monday, August 2, 2024 (was July 3, 2024 [ECF 11])

These changes should not affect the remaining deadlines.

STIPULATION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER AND ORDER
-2-

1

Dated: February 2, 2024

2

LONGYEAR & LAVRA, LLP

By:/s/ Denny Yu
VAN LONGYEAR
NICOLE M. CAHILL
DENNY YU
Attorneys for Defendants,
City of Merced, Cody McComb,
Nicholas de Jong and Dominic Saelee

3
4
5
6
7
8
9

Dated: February 2, 2024

WILLIAM L. SCHMIDT, ATTORNEY AT LAW,
P.C.

10
11
/s/ William Schmidt [as authorized 2-2-24]
WILLIAM SCHMIDT
Attorney for Plaintiffs

12
13
14
15

ORDER

16

The Court has reviewed the parties above Stipulation to Modify Scheduling Order.

17

For good cause shown (Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4)), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the

18

parties are granted an extension of time. The non expert discovery deadline is EXTENDED to

19

May 24, 2024. The expert disclosure deadline is EXTENDED to June 24, 2024. The rebuttal

20

expert disclosures are EXTENDED to July 24, 2024.

21

EXTENDED to August 2, 2024. All other remaining deadlines in the Scheduling Order (Doc.

22

11) REMAIN AS SET.

The close of expert discovery is

23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.

25

Dated:

26

/s/ Sheila K. Oberto

February 5, 2024

.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

27
28
STIPULATION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER AND ORDER
-3-