Mitchell v. Felker et al

Filing 137

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 11/15/12 ORDERING that the Parties shall have until November 28, 2012 to file a Joint Statement re Discovery Dispute in accordance with Local Rule 251(c). Defendants Motion to Quash will be heard on December 5, 2012 at 10:00 a.m, or at the Courts earliest convenience. (Dillon, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

KAMALA D. HARRIS
Attorney General of California
DAMON G. MCCLAIN, (SBN 209508)
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
CHRISTOPHER J. BECKER, (SBN 230529)
Deputy Attorney General
ERIN SULLIVAN (SBN 242757)
Deputy Attorney General
455 Golden Gate Ave., Suite 11000
San Francisco, Ca 94102-7004
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 415.703.5843
Email: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendants M. Cate, S. Kernan, T.
McDonald, G. Giurbino, J. Tilton, T. Felker, M.
Wright, F. Foulk, D. Vanderville, J. Owen, and D.
Hellwig

10

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12

SACRAMENTO DIVISION

13
14
ROBERT MITCHELL, et al.,

Case No. 2:08-CV-01196 JAM EFB

15
16
v.
17
18
19

Plaintiffs, JOINT STIPULATION AND
--------[PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND
DEADLINE TO HEAR DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO QUASH PLAINTIFFS’
THIRD-PARTY SUBPOENA

MATTHEW CATE, et al.,
Defendants. Judge:

The Honorable Edmund F.
Brennan

20
21
22

Under Local Rule 144, Plaintiffs Robert Mitchell, Alvaro Quesada, Tony Trujillo, and

23

Hanif Abdullah (“Plaintiffs”) and Defendants M. Cate, S. Kernan, T. McDonald, G. Giurbino, J.

24

Tilton, T. Felker, M. Wright, F. Foulk, D. Vanderville, J. Owen, and D. Hellwig (“Defendants”)

25

(collectively the “Parties”) enter into this stipulation to extend the briefing schedule and hearing

26

on Defendants’ Motion to Quash Plaintiffs’ Third-Party Subpoena.

27
28
1
--------Joint Stipulation and [Proposed] Order re Defs.’ Mot. to Quash

R. Mitchell, et al. v. Cate, et al.
Case No. 2:08-CV-01196 JAM EFB

1

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by the Parties:

2

1.

3

party Mr. Jeffrey Beard.

4
5
6
7
8

On October 25, 2012, Plaintiffs attempted to serve a document subpoena on third-

2.

The compliance date specified for Mr. Beard’s production was set for November 26,

3.

Defendants contend that the subpoena was not served by “delivering a copy to the

2012.

named person” as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(b)(1).
4.

If the subpoena had been personally served on Mr. Beard, any objections to the

9

subpoena must be served within 14 days after service of the subpoena or before the time

10

designated for compliance if less than 14 days after service. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(2)(B).

11
12
13

5.

Although Mr. Beard has not yet been personally served with the subpoena, the parties

nonetheless agree that Mr. Beard has actual notice of the subpoena.
6.

At Defendants’ request, Plaintiffs agree that this stipulated extension relieves Mr.

14

Beard of his obligation to comply with the November 26, 2012 production deadline pending a

15

ruling from the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Quash.

16
17
18

7.

On November 1, 2012, the Court informed defense counsel that it will be dark on

November 21, 2012—the Court’s regular law and motion calendar day.
8.

Local Rule 251(b) provides that a discovery motion will “not be heard unless (1) the

19

parties have conferred and attempted to resolve their differences, and (2) the parties have set forth

20

their differences and the bases therefor in a Joint Statement re Discovery Disagreement.”

21

Although not explicit, this Court has held that Local Rule 251’s joint statement requirement

22

applies to motions to quash. See Portnoy v. City of Woodland, Case No. CIV S-11-1720 GEB

23

EFB (E.D. Cal., Feb. 13, 2012).

24

9.

The Parties agree that extended time on Defendants’ Motion to Quash is appropriate.

25

10.

The Parties also agree that the extended schedule will have no impact on other

26
27
28

deadlines in this case.
11.

The Parties agree that this extension does not extend the date for any other discovery

in the matter.
2
Joint Stipulation and [Proposed] Order re Defs.’ Mot. to Quash
---------

R. Mitchell, et al. v. Cate, et al.
Case No. 2:08-CV-01196 JAM EFB

1
2

12.

The parties agree that this extension does not extend or change any of the pre-trial

dates set by the Pretrial Scheduling Order dated August 28, 2012.

3

THE PARTIES HEREBY STIPULATE AND AGREE as follows:

4

The Parties shall have until November 28, 2012 to file a “Joint Statement re Discovery

5

Dispute” in accordance with Local Rule 251(c). Defendants’ Motion to Quash will be heard on

6

December 5, 2012 at 10:00 a.m, or at the Court’s earliest convenience.

7
8
9

IT IS SO STIPULATED.
Dated:

11/8/12________

10
11

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

12

Dated:

_/s/ Damon McClain____
DAMON MCCLAIN
Attorneys for Defendants

11/8/12________

13

________/s/______________
REBEKAH EVENSON
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

14
15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 15, 2012

17
18
19

SA2011300596
20649366.doc

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Joint Stipulation and [Proposed] Order re Defs.’ Mot. to Quash
---------

R. Mitchell, et al. v. Cate, et al.
Case No. 2:08-CV-01196 JAM EFB