Graham v. Runnels, et al

Filing 92

STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 12/22/2011 and agreed between the parties to EXTEND the deadline for defendants to file and/or re-notice any dispositive motion until 2/24/2012; plaintiff's opposition due on or before 3/22/2012; and defendants' reply due on or before 3/29/2012. (Yin, K)

1
Amended Third Stipulation, Request to Modify the Scheduling Order, and [Proposed] Order (2:07-cv-2291 GGH P)

KAMALA D. HARRIS, State Bar No. 146672
Attorney General of California
TRACY S. HENDRICKSON , State Bar No. 155081
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
JAIME M. GANSON , State Bar No. 230206
Deputy Attorney General
1300 I Street, Suite 125
P.O. Box 944255
Sacramento, CA 94244-2550
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendants Kopec and Martin
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SACRAMENTO DIVISION

2:07-cv-2291 GGH P

LEVON GRAHAM,
Plaintiff,
v.

D. L. RUNNELS, ET AL.,

AMENDED THIRD STIPULATION,
REQUEST TO MODIFY THE
SCHEDULING ORDER, AND
[PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING
DEFENDANTS’ DEADLINE FOR FILING
DISPOSITIVE MOTION

Defendants.
REQUEST TO MODIFY THE SCHEDULING ORDER
A scheduling order may be modified upon a showing of good cause, Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b).
Good cause exists when the deadline cannot be met despite due diligence. Johnson v. Mammoth
Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992).
This Court previously modified the scheduling order, upon the parties’ stipulation, to
extend the Plaintiff’s deadline for taking depositions to November 9, 2011, and Defendants’

1
2

dispositive motion deadline to November 23, 2011. (ECF No. 83.) The remaining depositions
were completed and the parties indicated to the Court Reporter which portions of the transcripts
should be designated as confidential. While this process was ongoing, the Court again modified
the scheduling order, upon the parties’ stipulation, to extend the Defendants’ dispositive motion
deadline to December 22, 2011, to accommodate the completion of the deposition transcripts.
(CD 89.)
The deponents have not yet reviewed and returned the transcripts, and this process is
taking longer than anticipated. Defendants intend to include testimony from these deposition
transcripts in their motion for summary judgment. But, because the transcripts are not yet
finalized, Defendants cannot complete their dispositive motion before the current December 22,
2011 deadline. The parties, therefore, request that the Court extend the deadline for Defendants
to file a dispositive motion to February 24, 2012.
STIPULATION
The parties, through their respective counsel of record, stipulate that:
1.

The deadline for Defendants to file and/or re-notice any dispositive motion shall be

extended until February 24, 2012;
2.

Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendants’ dispositive motion shall be due on or before

March 22, 2012;
3.

Defendants’ reply in support of their dispositive motion shall be due on or before

March 29, 2012; and
4.

The hearing on Defendants’ dispositive motion shall be held on April 5, 2012, or on a

date thereafter to be set by the Court.
Dated: December 19, 2011

/s/ Brendan K. Kelleher
Brendan K. Kelleher
LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
Attorneys for Plaintiff Levon Graham

Dated: December 19, 2011

/s/ Jaime M. Ganson
Jaime M. Ganson
Deputy Attorney General
Attorney for Defendants Martin and Kopec

SA2008305081
grah2291.amstp.wpd

ORDER
Good cause shown, the deadline for Defendants to file and/or re-notice any dispositive

motion shall be extended until February 24, 2012. Plaintiff’s opposition shall be due on or before
March 22, 2012, and Defendants’ reply shall be due on or before March 29, 2012. The hearing
on Defendants’ dispositive motion shall be held on April 5, 2012, or on a date thereafter to be set
by the Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 22, 2011

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
grah2291.amstp