Lemire et al v. State of California et al

Filing 156

STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. on 1/7/2015 ORDERING that the parties' stipulated request for a three-day extension of deadline to file their motions concerning Propositions 36 and 47 is GRANTED. The parties' motions concerning their respective positions on Propositions 36 and 47 shall be filed by no later than 1/8/2015. (Zignago, K.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

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]
Attorneys for Defendants Cahoon, Holliday,
Nuehring, and Sisto

8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
SACRAMENTO DIVISION
11
12
13

SHERIE LEMIRE,

No. 2:08-cv-00455 GEB-EFB

14
15

Plaintiff, STIPULATION AND PROPOSED
ORDER FOR THREE-DAY EXTENSION
OF DEADLINE TO FILE MOTIONS RE
PROPOSITIONS 36 AND 47

v.

16
17

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS AND
REHABILITATION,

18
Defendants.
19
20
21

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

22

their counsel of record, agree to and request a three-day extension of the deadline to file their

23

motions concerning Propositions 36 and 47 that are currently due on January 5, 2015, based on

24

the Pretrial Order dated December 10, 2014. (See ECF No. 154, 7:12-9:2.) Good cause exists to

25

grant this stipulation because defense counsel is preparing for trial that is scheduled to start on

26

January 6, and the parties require more time to work out a stipulation of pertinent facts that will

27

aid the Court in its determination concerning the applicability of Propositions 36 and 47.

28
1
Stipulation for Three-Day Extension of Prop. 36 and 47 Motions (2:08-cv-00455 GEB-EFB)

1

The court may modify a final pretrial order to prevent manifest injustice. Fed. R. Civ. P.

2

16(e). A scheduling order may be modified only upon a showing of good cause and by leave of

3

Court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A), 16(b)(4); see, e.g., Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

amendment).

11

Defense counsel is scheduled to start trial in the matter of Sutherland v. Yates (E.D. Cal.

12

No. 1:09-cv-2152 SAB) on January 6, 2015, before Magistrate Judge Boone, in the Fresno

13

Division of this Court. Defense counsel spent the majority of December preparing the necessary

14

trial documents and is currently undergoing final preparations for trial. Although defense counsel

15

has started working on the motion due in this case, she will be unable to complete Defendants‟

16

motion by the current deadline.

17

Also, due to the holidays, the parties were unable to finalize a list of stipulated facts

18

concerning Robert St. Jovite‟s criminal convictions. The parties believe that a set of stipulated

19

facts will assist and facilitate in the Court‟s determination concerning the applicability and impact

20

of Propositions 36 and 47 on St. Jovite had he survived, including that date on which he would

21

have been released from prison. Counsel for the parties continue to confer and expect to reach an

22

agreement on many pertinent facts related to the motions. For these reasons, the parties request a

23

three-day extension, up to and including January 8, 2015, of the deadline to file their respective

24

motions.

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///
2
Stipulation for Three-Day Extension of Prop. 36 and 47 Motions (2:08-cv-00455 GEB-EFB)

1

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

2
3

Dated: January 5, 2015

4

Respectfully submitted,
LAW OFFICES OF GREEN & GREEN, LLP

5

/s/ Geri Lynn Green

6

GERI LYNN GREEN
Attorneys for Plaintiff

7
8

Dated: January 5, 2015

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

9
10

/s/ Diana Esquivel
DIANA ESQUIVEL
Deputy Attorney General
Attorneys for Defendants

11
12
13

SA2008302509
11664122.doc

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Stipulation for Three-Day Extension of Prop. 36 and 47 Motions (2:08-cv-00455 GEB-EFB)

1
2
3
4
5

ORDER
The parties‟ stipulated request for a three-day extension of deadline to file their motions
concerning Propositions 36 and 47 is granted.
The parties‟ motions concerning their respective positions on Propositions 36 and 47 shall
be filed by no later than January 8, 2015.

6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7

Dated: January 7, 2015

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
Stipulation for Three-Day Extension of Prop. 36 and 47 Motions (2:08-cv-00455 GEB-EFB)