(Consent) Murillo v. City of Woodland et al

Filing 61

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 04/08/11 ORDERING that plf's #58 Request to Continue the Hearing on the Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED w/o prejudice; parties' #59 Stipulation and proposed order Extending Expert Discovery is NOT approved w/o prejudice; parties' #60 Stipulation and proposed order Setting a Settlement Conference is NOT approved, w/o prejudice. (Benson, A.)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 DESIREE MURILLO, 11 12 13 14 15 Plaintiff, No. 2:09-cv-03117 KJN v. CITY OF WOODLAND; RYAN PIERCY; CASEY SULLIVAN; and DOES 1 to 40, Inclusive, Defendants. ORDER / 16 17 This order addresses several documents recently filed by the parties that have 18 created confusion in regards to the parties’ intentions in this case. Those documents are: 19 (1) defendant City of Woodland’s (“City”) motion for summary adjudication (Dkt. No. 52), 20 which noticed a hearing date of May 5, 2011; (2) plaintiff’s ex parte request for a 30-day 21 continuance of the hearing and briefing schedule on the City’s motion for summary adjudication, 22 which also represents that the City has agreed to an unspecified, “reasonable continuance” (Dkt. 23 No. 58); (3) the parties’ stipulation and proposed order requesting until May 20, 2011, to conduct 24 expert depositions (Dkt. No. 59); and (4) the parties’ stipulation and proposed order requesting 25 that the court set a settlement conference in this case, but not until after the May 5, 2011 hearing 26 on City’s motion for summary adjudication (Dkt. No. 60). 1 1 The court herein denies plaintiff’s request for a continuance and does not approve 2 the parties’ stipulations, but without prejudice to the refiling of a single stipulation or other 3 appropriate document that seeks relief relative to plaintiff’s request for a continuance and the 4 parties’ stipulations. 5 First, it is entirely unclear to the court what the parties have agreed to in regards to 6 the hearing date on the City’s motion for summary adjudication. On April 7, 2011, the City 7 noticed its motion for a hearing to take place on May 5, 2011. On April 8, 2011, plaintiff filed an 8 ex parte request asking the court to continue the hearing on the City’s motion by 30 days, and 9 representing that “the defense counsel for the moving party has agreed to a reasonable 10 continuance to provide plaintiff with adequate time to prepare a response to said motion.” (Req. 11 for Continuance ¶¶ 3-4.) That request is not signed by counsel for the City. Also on April 8, 12 2011, the parties filed a stipulation that seeks a settlement conference, but requests a date after 13 the May 5, 2011 hearing on the City’s motion for summary adjudication, thereby suggesting that 14 the parties intend the hearing to still occur on that date. However, plaintiff has represented that 15 she and the City have agreed on an unspecified continuance of the hearing on that motion, which 16 necessarily impacts when the court would conduct a settlement conference. In short, the court 17 cannot sort out the parties’ agreement in relation to the date of the hearing on the City’s motion 18 for summary adjudication. 19 Second, one of the parties’ stipulations requests that the court extend the time for 20 the parties to conduct expert depositions until May 20, 2011. However, the court’s Status 21 (Pretrial Scheduling) Order provides that “[a]ll discovery shall be completed by March 17, 22 2011.” (Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order at 4:2, Dkt. No. 43.) Thus, the time to conduct expert 23 depositions has already passed. Although the parties were granted an extension of the deadlines 24 to disclose expert witnesses and rebuttal expert witnesses to January 31, 2011, and February 14, 25 2011, respectively (see Order, Jan. 11, 2011, at 2, Dkt. No. 47), the parties did not request or 26 receive an extension of the March 17, 2011 discovery completion deadline, upon a showing of 2 1 good cause. The parties had at least between February 14, 2011, and March 17, 2011, in which 2 to take expert depositions. Accordingly, the court will not extend the already-expired discovery 3 completion deadline without a further showing of good cause to modify the court’s scheduling 4 order. The parties are reminded that an “[a]greement by the parties pursuant to stipulation does 5 not constitute good cause. Nor does the unavailability of witnesses or counsel, except in 6 extraordinary circumstances, constitute good cause.” (Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order at 8:12- 7 14.) 8 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 9 1. Plaintiff’s request for a continuance of the hearing date and briefing 10 schedule on defendant City of Woodland’s motion for summary adjudication (Dkt. No. 58) is 11 denied without prejudice. 12 13 2. The parties’ stipulation and proposed order requesting until May 20, 2011, to conduct expert depositions (Dkt. No. 59) is not approved, but without prejudice. 14 3. The parties’ stipulation and proposed order requesting that the court set a 15 settlement conference in this case after the May 5, 2011 hearing on defendant City of 16 Woodland’s motion for summary adjudication (Dkt. No. 60) is not approved, but without 17 prejudice. 18 4. If the parties still desire to alter the hearing, briefing, or scheduling dates 19 in this case, they shall do so in a single document that clearly represents the parties’ agreement as 20 to the alteration of any such date. Insofar as any request to alter the discovery completion 21 deadline in this case, the parties shall identify the good cause that supports such a request. 22 //// 23 //// 24 //// 25 //// 26 //// 3 1 5. In regards to the date of any requested settlement conference, the parties 2 shall contact the undersigned’s Courtroom Deputy, Matt Caspar, at (916) 930-4187, to schedule a 3 mutually agreeable date. 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: April 8, 2011 6 7 8 _____________________________________ KENDALL J. NEWMAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 4

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?