Bock et al v. County of Sutter et al

Filing 88

ORDER signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 7/23/2013 GRANTING 84 Request to modify the 69 Pretrial Scheduling Order. Settlement Conference is CONTINUED TO 1/9/2014 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 8 (EFB) before Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan. (cc EFB) (Donati, J)

Download PDF
1 A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 2 3 4 5 6 John R. Whitefleet, SBN 213301 350 University Ave., Suite 200 Sacramento, California 95825 TEL: 916.929.1481 FAX: 916.927.3706 Attorneys for Defendants COUNTY OF SUTTER; COUNTY OF YUBA; J.PAUL PARKER; DAVID SAMSON; NORMAN BIDWELL; JOHN S. ZIL; CHRISTOPHER BARNETT; BOBBY JOE LITTLE; DAVID CALAPINI; SHAUN FLIEHMAN; RAINBOW CRANE; KATY MULLIN; DONICE MCGINNIS; LEWIS MCELFRESH; BALJINDER RAI 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 13 14 CASE NO: 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN ESTATE OF RODNEY LOUIS BOCK, deceased, by and through CYNDIE DENNY BOCK, as Administrator; KIMBERLY BOCK; KELLIE BOCK HILLARY BOCK; M.B. minor through her mother and guardian ad litem Cyndie Denny Bock; LAURA LYNN BOCK; and ROBERT BOCK, 15 DEFENDANTS’ EX PARTE APPLICATION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER CONTINUING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE; ORDER Plaintiffs, 16 vs. 17 COUNTY OF SUTTER; COUNTY OF YUBA; J. PAUL PARKER, Sutter County Sheriff’s Department Sheriff; DAVID SAMSON, Sutter County Jail Division Commander; NORMAN BIDWELL, Sutter County Jail Corrections Lieutenant; JOHN S. ZIL; CHRISTOPHER BARNETT; BOBBY JOE LITTLE; DAVID CALAPINI; SHAUN FLIEHMAN; RAINBOW CRANE; KATY MULLIN; DONICE MCGINNIS; LEWIS MCELFRESH; BALJINDER RAI; and Does 1 through XL inclusive, 18 19 20 21 22 23 Defendants. / 24 25 26 27 28 PORTER * SCOTT ATTORNEYS 350 UNIVERSITY AVE., SUITE 200 SACRAMENTO, CA 95825 TEL: 916. 929.1481 FAX: 916. 927.3706 www.porterscott.com 1 DEFENDANTS' EX PARTE APPLICATION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER CONTINUING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE; ORDER 01152717.WPD 1 I. 2 APPLICATION 3 Defendants COUNTY OF SUTTER, COUNTY OF YUBA, J.PAUL PARKER, DAVID 4 SAMSON, NORMAN BIDWELL, JOHN S. ZIL, CHRISTOPHER BARNETT, BOBBY JOE 5 LITTLE, DAVID CALAPINI, SHAUN FLIEHMAN, RAINBOW CRANE, KATY MULLIN, 6 DONICE MCGINNIS, LEWIS MCELFRESH, and BALJINDER RAI (hereinafter collectively 7 “Defendants”) hereby apply for an order modifying the Pretrial Scheduling Order dated March 28, 8 2013 (Docket Entry No. 69) to continue the Settlement Conference currently scheduled for July 25, 9 2013, before Magistrate Judge Edmund Brennan. 10 Defendants respectfully submit that good cause exists to continue the Settlement Conference. 11 The Pretrial Scheduling Order dated March 28, 2013 was issued less then four months ago, and 12 discovery deadlines are far in the future. Specifically, percipient witness discovery is to be 13 completed by April 9, 2014; expert disclosures to be completed by June 9, 2014. The Final Pretrial 14 Conference is set for December 18, 2014, and Trial is set for February 9, 2015. Moreover, Plaintiffs 15 have conducted only two depositions, and only recently provided responses to written discovery to 16 Defendants, which are being reviewed for their sufficiency. Accordingly, Defendants submit 17 insufficient discovery has occurred to render a Settlement Conference meaningful at this stage in 18 the proceedings, and/or would result in a waste of judicial resources at this time. Counsel for 19 Plaintiffs refused to stipulate to a continuance of the Settlement Conference, and invited Defendants 20 to move the court to do so. 21 Defendants submit a continuance of six (6) months would allow sufficient time to conduct 22 discovery, evaluate same, and prepare for a meaningful Settlement Conference, and not affect any 23 other dates. Based upon the foregoing, Defendants submit good cause exists to modify the Pretrial 24 Scheduling Order dated March 28, 2013 (Docket Entry No. 69) to continue the Settlement 25 Conference currently scheduled for July 25, 2013, before Magistrate Judge Edmund Brennan, to a 26 date in early January 2014 at the Court’s convenience, and thus the Court should grant this 27 Application. 28 PORTER * SCOTT ATTORNEYS 350 UNIVERSITY AVE., SUITE 200 SACRAMENTO, CA 95825 TEL: 916. 929.1481 FAX: 916. 927.3706 www.porterscott.com 2 DEFENDANTS' EX PARTE APPLICATION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER CONTINUING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE; ORDER 01152717.WPD 1 2 Respectfully submitted, DATED: July 22, 2013 PORTER SCOTT A Professional Corporation 3 4 By /s/ John R. Whitefleet John R. Whitefleet Attorney for Defendants 5 6 II. 7 DECLARATION OF JOHN R. WHITEFLEET 8 I, John R. Whitefleet, declare: 9 1. I am an attorney at law licensed to practice before all the courts in the State of 10 California and the United States District Court, Eastern District of California and am a shareholder 11 with the law firm of Porter Scott, a Professional Corporation, attorneys for Defendants in the above- 12 titled matter. 13 2. The Pretrial Scheduling Order dated March 28, 2013 (Docket Entry No. 69) set a 14 Settlement Conference for July 25, 2013, before Magistrate Judge Edmund Brennan. Percipient 15 witness discovery is to be completed by April 9, 2014; expert disclosures by June 9, 2014. The Final 16 Pretrial Conference is set for December 18, 2014, and Trial is set for February 9, 2015. 17 3. The Pretrial Scheduling Order dated March 28, 2013 was issued less then four 18 months ago, and discovery deadlines are far in the future. Plaintiffs have conducted only two 19 depositions, a jail inspection, and only recently provided responses to written discovery to 20 Defendants on July 10, 2103, which are being reviewed for their sufficiency. I believe insufficient 21 discovery has occurred to render a Settlement Conference meaningful at this stage in the 22 proceedings, and/or would result in a waste of judicial resources at this time. In my estimation, an 23 additional six months is necessary for the parties to conduct sufficient discovery and better evaluate 24 the positions for a Settlement Conference. 25 4. On July 4, 2103 (at the jail inspection), and again on July 16, 2013, I suggested to 26 counsel for Plaintiffs to continue the Settlement Conference. On July 16, 2013, counsel for 27 Plaintiffs refused to stipulate to a continuance of the Settlement Conference, and invited Defendants 28 to move the court to do so. PORTER * SCOTT ATTORNEYS 350 UNIVERSITY AVE., SUITE 200 SACRAMENTO, CA 95825 TEL: 916. 929.1481 FAX: 916. 927.3706 www.porterscott.com 3 DEFENDANTS' EX PARTE APPLICATION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER CONTINUING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE; ORDER 01152717.WPD 1 5. Accordingly, on behalf of Defendants, I respectfully request modification of the 2 Pretrial Scheduling Order dated March 28, 2013 to continue the Settlement Conference for July 25, 3 2013, before Magistrate Judge Edmund Brennan to a date convenient to the Court in early January 4 2014. 5 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California, that the foregoing 6 is true and correct and if called to testify as a witness in this matter I can and will testify competently 7 as to the matters of fact contained herein based upon my personal knowledge. Executed this 16th 8 day of July, 2013, at Sacramento, California. 9 10 /s/ John R Whitefleet John R. Whitefleet 11 12 13 ORDER 14 Good cause appearing, Defendants’ Ex Parte Application (ECF No. 84) is GRANTED. The 15 Pretrial Scheduling Order dated March 28, 2013 (ECF No. 69) is modified as follows: the Settlement 16 Conference for July 25, 2013, before Magistrate Judge Edmund Brennan is vacated and rescheduled 17 for January 9, 2014, at 10:00 a.m in Courtroom 8. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 20 Date: July 23, 2013 21 _____________________________________ ___________________________________________ MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR., CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PORTER * SCOTT ATTORNEYS 350 UNIVERSITY AVE., SUITE 200 SACRAMENTO, CA 95825 TEL: 916. 929.1481 FAX: 916. 927.3706 www.porterscott.com 4 DEFENDANTS' EX PARTE APPLICATION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER CONTINUING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE; ORDER 01152717.WPD

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?