Akhtar v. Mesa et al

Filing 87

STIPULATION and ORDER; Revised Scheduling Order signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 12/2/13. The deadline for joinder of additional parties is January 27, 2014. The parties shall conclude fact discovery, and any motions to compel related to nonexpert discovery must be filed by March 14, 2014 and noticed to be heard, in accordance with L.R. 230(b), by April 11, 2014. The parties shall make expert witness disclosures by no later than April 30, 2014. Expert discovery shall be completed, and any motions pertaining to expert discovery shall be filed by June 30, 2014 and noticed to be heard no later than July 30, 2014. Dispositive motions shall be filed no later than August 22, 2014 and noticed to be heard by no later than Septembe r 30, 2014. A settlement conference will be set as appropriate. The final pretrial conference and jury trial settings are hereby vacated, and will be reset following the Courts determination of any dispositive motions. With the exception of these changes, the other provisions of the Courts August 26, 2013 Order 85 remain in effect.(Dillon, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

King Hall Civil Rights Clinic
Carter C. White, SBN 164149
U.C. Davis School of Law
One Shields Avenue, Bldg. TB-30
Davis, CA 95616-8821
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
Attorney for Plaintiff
Javiad Akhtar

8
9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12
13

Javiad Akhtar,

14
15

)
) No. 2:09-cv-2733-MCE-AC
)
) STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
) REVISED SCHEDULING ORDER
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.

16
17
18

J. Mesa, et al.,
Defendants.

19
20
21
22

On August 26, 2013, the Court issued a scheduling order in which, among other things,

23

the Court set a schedule for the trial and other dates in this case. Pursuant to Local Rule 143 the

24

parties ask the Court to enter a revised scheduling order, as follows:

25

A scheduling order may be modified upon a showing of good cause. Good cause exists

26

when the moving party demonstrates that it cannot meet the schedule despite exercising due

27

diligence. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992).

28

1
STIPULATION AND PROPOSED REVISED SCHEDULING ORDER 2:09-cv-02733-MCE-AC

Despite the exercise of due diligence, the parties are unable to keep the current schedule

1
2

in this case. The parties have exchanged initial disclosures and the plaintiff has taken four

3

depositions. The plaintiff needs additional time to identify potential parties through written

4

discovery and at least two more depositions. In addition, the plaintiff is represented by the UC

5

Davis Civil Rights Clinic and the assigned certified law students who would like to maximize

6

participation within the bounds of their academic calendar. The parties respectfully ask this

7

Court to enter this proposed stipulation as an Order, amending the Court’s August 26, 2013

8

Order (ECF No. 85):
1. The deadline for joinder of additional parties is January 27, 2014.

9
10

2. The parties shall conclude fact discovery, and any motions to compel related to non-

11

expert discovery must be filed by March 14, 2014 and noticed to be heard, in accordance with

12

L.R. 230(b), by April 11, 2014.

13

3. The parties shall make expert witness disclosures by no later than April 30, 2014.

14

4. Supplemental/rebuttal expert witness reports are due by May 21, 2014.

15

5. Expert discovery shall be completed, and any motions pertaining to expert discovery

16

shall be filed by June 30, 2014 and noticed to be heard no later than July 30, 2014.
6. Dispositive motions shall be filed no later than August 22, 2014 and noticed to be

17
18

heard by no later than September 30, 2014.

19

7. A settlement conference will be set as appropriate.

20

8. The final pretrial conference and jury trial settings are hereby vacated, and will be reset

21

following the Court’s determination of any dispositive motions.
With the exception of these changes, the other provisions of the Court’s August 26, 2013

22
23

Order (ECF No. 85), remain in effect.
The parties respectfully ask that this Stipulation be entered as an order of the Court.

24
25
26
27
28

///
///
///
2
STIPULATION AND PROPOSED REVISED SCHEDULING ORDER 2:09-cv-02733-MCE-AC

Respectfully submitted,

1
2
3

/S/ Carter C. White
_____________________________
Carter C. White
Supervising Attorney
Charlie Chin
Jaewon Lee
Certified Law Students

Dated: November 26, 2013

4
5
6
7

Counsel for Plaintiff, Javiad Akhtar

8
9
10
11

/S/ Diana Esquivel
_____________________________
Diana Esquivel
Deputy Attorney General

Dated: November 26, 2013

12
13

Counsel for Defendants Counsel for
Defendants Mesa and Turner, and L. Ward,
R. Ward, and C. Ward, as successors-ininterest to Defendant Larry Ward, Sr.

14
15
16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED:

18
19

Date: December 2, 2013

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3
STIPULATION AND PROPOSED REVISED SCHEDULING ORDER 2:09-cv-02733-MCE-AC