Poppen v. Foster et al

Filing 58

STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds on 08/04/11 ordering (Discovery due by 4/1/2012, Dispositive Motions filed by 6/1/2012). (Plummer, M)

1

6

KERSHAW, CUTTER & RATINOFF, LLP
C. BROOKS CUTTER, 121407
JOHN R. PARKER, JR., 257761
401 Watt Avenue
Sacramento, California 95864
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
E-mail: [e-mail]

7

Attorneys for Plaintiff

2
3
4
5

8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
KEVIN POPPEN,

CASE NO.: 2:10-cv-00568-KJM-JFM

12
Plaintiff,

13

AMENDED STIPULATED REQUEST FOR
RELIEF FROM SCHEDULING ORDER AND
SCHEDULING ORDER

14

vs.

15

LIONEL FOSTER, M.D.; TERRI
WEINHOLDT; JALAL SALTANIANNEDEH-IV, S. HEATLEY, T.
KIMURA-YIP; and K. McLEAN,
In Their Individual Capacities,

16
17
18

Defendants.

Complaint Filed: March 10, 2010
Trial Date: None Set
Assigned to Judge Kimberly J. Mueller

19
20

Plaintiff Kevin Poppen and the above-named Defendants hereby ask the Court to continue

21

the deadlines currently contained in the Court’s May 25, 2011 scheduling order such that the fact

22

discovery cut-off will be moved to April 1, 2012, and the deadline for dispositive motions will be

23

moved to June 1, 2012.1 No previous extensions have been granted.

24

/////

25

/////

26
27
28

1

The Court’s May 31, 2011 Discovery and Scheduling Order is apparently based upon a standard
order for cases filed by prisoners appearing pro per, as this case had proceeded until Plaintiff’s
current attorneys were appointed counsel for Plaintiff through the Northern District of
California’s Pro Bono Program.
-1Stipulation Regarding Discovery Deadlines; and Order

1

The parties make this request on the following grounds: First, Defendant Lionel Foster

2

was only recently served and by agreement of the Parties his answer is due on July 20, 2011.

3

Second, because Plaintiff is now represented by counsel, a more comprehensive scheduling order

4

may be more appropriate than the standard order used for prisoner cases. Third, counsel for

5

Defendants has a busy trial schedule for the rest of the year, as follows:
•

6
7

Sallie v. County of Sacramento, CASE NO.34-2008-00014747-CU-OE-GDS,
October 25, 2011 (4-6 week trial in the Superior Court of Sacramento County)

•

8
9

Kirbyson v. Tesoro, et al., CASE NO. 09-03990 SC,
December 5, 2011 (7-10 day trial in the Northern District of California)

•

10
11

Taylor v. CDCR, et al., CASE NO. 2:09-cv-00024 JAM,
December 5, 2011, (4-5 day trial in the Eastern District of California)

12

Fourth, and most importantly, given enough time to conduct them, the Parties believe that this

13

case could be resolved through settlement negotiations in the next few months, without any

14

further action by the Court.

15

Accordingly, the parties propose the following new case schedule:

16

Non-Expert Discovery Deadline:
Dispositive Motion Filing Deadline:

20
21

August 2012

Trial:

19

Per F.R.Civ.P. 26

Final Pretrial Conference:

18

June 1, 2012

Expert Disclosures:

17

April 1, 2012

September 2012

/////

22
/////
23
/////
24
/////
25
26
27
28

/////
/////
/////
-2Stipulation Regarding Discovery Deadlines; and Order

1

Dated: August 4, 2011

Respectfully submitted,

2
By: /s/ C. Brooks Cutter
C. Brooks Cutter
KERSHAW, CUTTER & RATINOFF, LLP
Attorneys for Plaintiff

3
4
5

By:_/s/ Shanan L. Hewitt

6
7

SHANAN HEWITT
Attorney for Defendants
IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
Dated: August 4, 2011.
9
/s/ John F. Moulds
John F. Moulds
U.S. Magistrate Judge

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-

Stipulation Regarding Discovery Deadlines; and Order