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)
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?