Grant v. Swartzinager et al

Filing 40

STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds on 11/02/10 amending the court's schedule as follows: Factual discovery and factual discovery motions cut-off 01/14/11 - limited to statute of limitations issues; all other factual discovery stayed with the exception of Gregory Grant's deposition. Expert designations and reports stayed. Rebuttal designations and reports stayed. Expert discovery cut off stayed. Pre-trial motion cut-off set for 02/18/11 (for MSJ on statute of limitations and other legal issues. (Plummer, M)

(PC) Grant v. Schwarzenegger et al

Doc. 40

1 2 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

EDMUND G. BROWN JR. Attorney General of California PAUL REYNAGA, State Bar No. 72361 Supervising Deputy Attorney General ELIZABETH A. LINTON, State Bar No. 231619 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GREGORY D. GRANT,

07-CV-2700-JAM-JFM Plaintiff, STIPULATION AND ORDER AMENDING THE COURT'S SCHEDULING ORDER

v. SCHWARZENEGGER, ET AL.,

Defendant.

Action Filed: Dec. 14, 2007

The parties hereby stipulate through their attorneys to extend the dates of the Court's scheduling order and respectfully request that the Court order the amendments to the scheduling order set forth herein. An amendment to the scheduling order is necessary because the parties have been unable to obtain necessary discovery documents from Santa Cruz Superior Court despite extensive efforts to do so, and they will not be able to obtain the documents before the close of discovery on November 5, 2010. This action was filed in pro per. The Court ordered counsel appointed on May 19, 2010, through the Eastern District's Pro Bono Panel. (Dkt. # 34.) The attorneys met and conferred shortly thereafter and determined that they would not be able to complete discovery before the 1
Stipulation & Order Amending the Court's Scheduling Order (07-CV-2700-JAM-JFM)
Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 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

July 2, 2010 deadline given the recent appointment of Plaintiff's counsel. They stipulated to amending the Court's scheduling order, and the Court so ordered the change on June 8, 2010. (Dkt. ## 35-36.) The parties then diligently pursued the case: Plaintiff's counsel travelled to Coalinga to meet with his client; the parties discussed settlement; and they obtained nearly 9,000 pages of records from Atascadero State Hospital (ASH) and Coalinga State Hospital (CSH). Upon review of the ASH and CSH records, it became apparent that the parties would also need to obtain relevant records from Santa Cruz Superior Court since those documents were not contained within the hospitals' records. The parties contacted Santa Cruz Superior Court on September 23, 2010, to request the documents. They were told that the superior court would need to obtain the documents from archives. On October 1, 2010, this Court granted the parties' stipulation to bifurcate discovery, limiting it to the statute of limitations issues, and to extend discovery by five weeks. (Dkt. # 38.) Despite efforts to timely obtain the documents from Santa Cruz, the parties are just now receiving them. When, on October 18, 2010, Santa Cruz Superior Court informed the parties that it would be unable to copy the documents for another month, the parties agreed to split the costs of a vendor, so that they could more expeditiously obtain the documents. The vendor copied the documents on October 25, 2010. Defendants just received a copy of the documents on October 27, 2010. They then Bates stamped the documents and sent them to Plaintiff on October 29, 2010. Thus, Plaintiff should receive a copy within the next couple of days. However, the parties just learned on October 25, 2010, that there are apparently hundreds of pages of documents that are under seal in the Santa Cruz Superior Court records. Should the parties determine that any of those documents are necessary to this litigation, they must seek a court order to obtain the documents. In addition, there are at least 18 different transcripts that may be relevant to this litigation that the parties must order separately. In order to determine if either the transcripts or sealed documents are necessary for this litigation, the parties must first review the documents from the Santa Cruz Superior Court.

2
Stipulation & Order Amending the Court's Scheduling Order (07-CV-2700-JAM-JFM)

1 2 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

In addition, the parties have noticed the deposition of Gregory Grant. Per this Court's prior order, Mr. Grant's deposition will not be limited to the statute of limitations issues. Therefore, it is necessary to have the Santa Cruz Superior Court documents prior to his deposition. For all of these reasons, the parties request a two month extension of the schedule previously ordered by the Court. They believe that two months will provide sufficient time to seek a court order for the production of sealed documents and to order the transcripts if necessary. Accordingly, the parties stipulate to the following changes to the Court's scheduling order:

Event Factual Discovery & Factual Discovery Motions Cut-Off

Current Deadline November 5, 2010 ­ limited to statute of limitations issues; all other factual discovery stayed, with the exception of Gregory Grant's deposition. stayed stayed stayed December 3, 2010 (for MSJ on statute of limitations and other legal issues)

Proposed Deadline January 14, 2011 - limited to statute of limitations issues; all other factual discovery stayed, with the exception of Gregory Grant's deposition. stayed stayed stayed February 18, 2011 (for MSJ on statute of limitations and other legal issues)

Expert Designations & Reports Rebuttal Designations & Reports Expert Discovery Cut-Off Pre-Trial Motion Cut-Off

Consistent with the Court's original scheduling order, pretrial conference and trial dates will be set, as appropriate, following adjudication of any dispositive motions or upon the expiration of time for filing such motions. IT IS SO STIPULATED /// /// ///

3
Stipulation & Order Amending the Court's Scheduling Order (07-CV-2700-JAM-JFM)

1 2 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

Dated: October 29, 2010

EDMUND G. BROWN JR. Attorney General of California PAUL REYNAGA Supervising Deputy Attorney General

___/s/ Elizabeth Linton_____________ ELIZABETH A. LINTON Deputy Attorney General Attorneys for Defendants Dated: October 29, 2010 /s/ Joe Ramsey, Esq. (as authorized on 10/29/2010)________ JOE RAMSEY, ESQ. Attorney for Grant Gregory

IT IS SO ORDERED Dated: November 2, 2010 /s/ John F. Moulds John F. Moulds U.S. Magistrate Judge

/gran2700.sch3

4
Stipulation & Order Amending the Court's Scheduling Order (07-CV-2700-JAM-JFM)