Lopez v. Peterson, et al

Filing 420

STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 8/3/15. Dispositive Motions due by 9/11/2015. (Dillon, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6

KAMALA D. HARRIS, State Bar No. 146672
Attorney General of California
CHRISTOPHER J. BECKER, State Bar No. 230529
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
DIANA ESQUIVEL, State Bar No. 202954
Deputy Attorney General
1300 I Street, Suite 125
P.O. Box 944255
Sacramento, CA 94244-2550
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]

7
8

Attorneys for Defendants Babich, Baughman,
Castro, Diggs, Haas, Holmes, C.J. Peterson, D.
Peterson, Reyes, and Wright

9
10

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12

SACRAMENTO DIVISION

13
14
ANDREW R. LOPEZ,

No. 2:98-cv-2111 MCE-EFB (PC)

15
16
v.
17
18
19

Plaintiff, STIPULATION AND PROPOSED
ORDER TO MODIFY SCHEDULING
ORDER TO EXTEND THE DEADLINE
TO FILE DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS

D. PETERSON, et al.,
Defendants.

20
21

Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) and Local Rule 143, the parties, through

22

their counsel of record (limited purpose counsel for Plaintiff), agree to and request a modification

23

of the Scheduling Order to extend the deadline to file dispositive motions by forty-five days, up to

24

and including September 11, 2015. Good cause exists to grant this stipulation because defense

25

counsel is preparing for trial and will be unable to complete Defendants’ intended summary-

26

judgment motion by the current deadline.

27
28

A scheduling order may be modified only upon a showing of good cause and by leave of
Court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A), 16(b)(4); see, e.g., Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975
1
Stipulation and Order to Modify Scheduling Order to Extend Dispositive Motion Deadline
(2:98-cv-2111 MCE-EFB)

1

F.2d 604, 609 (describing the factors a court should consider in ruling on such a motion). In

2

considering whether a party moving for a schedule modification has good cause, the Court

3

primarily focuses on the diligence of the party seeking the modification. Johnson, 975 F.2d at

4

609 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 advisory committee’s notes of 1983 amendment). “The district

5

court may modify the pretrial schedule ‘if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the

6

party seeking the amendment.’” Id. (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 advisory committee notes of 1983

7

amendment).

8
9

In December 2013, the Court issued a Scheduling Order in this matter. (ECF No. 371.) On
July 8, 2014, the Court appointed Robert Navarro from the Court’s pro bono attorney panel to

10

represent Plaintiff for the limited purpose of conducting discovery. (ECF No. 403.) Based on the

11

appointment of Mr. Navarro and the need for additional time to conduct discovery, the parties

12

agreed to and requested an extension of the scheduling deadlines, including the deadline to file

13

dispositive motions. (ECF No. 413.) The Court granted the parties’ request, and continued the

14

discovery deadline to March 27, 2015 and the dispositive-motion deadline to July 31, 2015.

15

(ECF No. 414.) On February 3, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel Defendant Holmes’s

16

further responses to a production request. (ECF No. 417.) The Court has not yet ruled on that

17

discovery motion.

18

Defendants require an extension to file their motion for summary judgment because their

19

counsel will not be able to complete the motion by the current deadline. Counsel has spent the

20

majority of the month of July preparing for trial in Lemire v. CDCR (E.D. Cal. No. 2:08-cv-0455

21

GEB-EFB); trial is scheduled to start on August 4, 2015, before Judge Burrell, and is expected to

22

last two to three weeks. Lemire is a factually and legal complex case that has consumed much of

23

defense counsel’s time and required that she be out of the office preparing witnesses and parties

24

for trial. Further, the Court has not yet ruled on Plaintiff’s pending discovery motion, which may

25

be a basis for Plaintiff to oppose or seek a continuance, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

26

56(d), of Defendants’ intended summary-judgment motion. Good cause therefore exists to

27

modify the Scheduling Order and extend the deadline to file dispositive motions for forty-five

28
2
Stipulation and Order to Modify Scheduling Order to Extend Dispositive Motion Deadline
(2:98-cv-2111 MCE-EFB)

1

days. The requested extension will allow defense counsel to complete the motion due here and

2

will give the Court additional time to rule on the pending discovery motion.

3

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

4
5

Dated: July 30, 2015

Respectfully submitted,

6

KAMALA D. HARRIS
Attorney General of California
CHRISTOPHER J. BECKER
Supervising Deputy Attorney General

7
8
9

/s/ Diana Esquivel

10

DIANA ESQUIVEL
Deputy Attorney General
Attorneys for Defendants

11
12
13

Dated: July 30, 2015

/s/ Robert Navarro
ROBERT NAVARRO
Limited-Purpose Attorney for Plaintiff

14
15
16
17
18

ORDER
Based on the parties’ stipulation and good cause appearing, it is ordered that the parties’
stipulated request to modify the Scheduling Order is granted.

19

Dispositive motions shall be filed on or before September 11, 2015.

20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21
22
23

Dated: August 3, 2015.
_______________________________________
Edmund F. Brennan
United States Magistrate Judge

24
25
26
27
28
3
Stipulation and Order to Modify Scheduling Order to Extend Dispositive Motion Deadline
(2:98-cv-2111 MCE-EFB)