Moncrief v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabiliation et al

Filing 54

STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 11/12/14 ordering that the time for plaintiff to file a motion to amend and to file an amended complaint be extended from 11/07/14 to 1/15/14. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4

Kenneth N. Frucht (SBN 178881)
Frederick J. Geonetta (SBN 114824)
GEONETTA & FRUCHT, LLP
100 Montgomery Street, Suite 1600
San Francisco, CA 94104
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

5
6

Attorneys for Plaintiff John Philip Moncrief

7
8
9
10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12
13

JOHN PHILIP MONCRIEF,

14

Plaintiff,

15

v.

16
17
18
19

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS & REHABILITATION,
RANDY GROUNDS, GARY
SWARTHOUT, and DOES 1-50,
inclusive,
Defendants.

20

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO.: 2:12-cv-00414 MCE AC P

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED
ORDER] FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
TO FILE A MOTION TO AMEND AND
TO AMEND COMPLAINT (L. Rule 144;
FRCP 6)

STIPULATION
21

On June 24, 2014 and August 21, 2014 respectively, the parties filed Stipulations and
22

Proposed Orders to extend the time for Plaintiff to file an amended complaint (Docket Nos.
23

49, 51). The Court signed and entered the orders requested (Docket Nos. 50, 52), and the
24
25
26
27
28

current extension expires on November 7, 2014. The purpose of these extensions was to
allow Plaintiff to complete discovery into the names of Doe defendants. Since that time the
Defendants’ counsel has been attempting, in response to Plaintiff’s FRCP 30(b)(6) deposition
notice, to identify the person(s) most knowledgeable about decisions that were made related
to the housing of Plaintiff on the date he alleges he was injured. It took some time, but
STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO AMEND
MONCRIEF v. CDCR
EASTERN DISTRICT COURT, CASE NO. 12-0414

1

Defendants counsel identified two persons whose depositions were taken in Sacramento on

2

October 29, 2014. At the deposition Defendants’ counsel identified one other person who it

3

appears may have been the person who was responsible for processing Plaintiff during his

4

transfer on the day he was injured. Additionally, one of the deponents identified a document

5

that, if it still exists, is likely to shed further light on what happened on the date of Plaintiff’s

6

injury. Plaintiff would therefore like to take the deposition of the other person identified, and

7

if possible obtain the document that was identified by the previous deponent, before moving

8

to amend. To do so requires a final extension of time.

9

Therefore, pursuant to Civil Local Rules 144, and FRCP 6, Plaintiff John Moncrief, by

10

and through his attorney of record, Kenneth Frucht of the Geonetta & Frucht, LLP law firm,

11

and Defendants Grounds, Swarthout, and CDRC, by and through their attorney of record Kelli

12

M. Hammond, hereby stipulate that the time for Plaintiff to file a motion to amend and to file

13

an amended complaint be extended from November 7, 2014 to January 15, 2014. The purpose

14
15
16
17

of the extension is to allow Plaintiff to take sufficient discovery to be able to identify Doe
defendants so that he can file an amended complaint substituting in the named defendants for
the individual defendants.
SO STIPULATED.

18
19

Dated: November 12, 14

GEONETTA & FRUCHT, LLP

20
21

By:

22

/s/
Kenneth Frucht
KENNETH FRUCHT
Attorneys for Plaintiff

23
24
25
26

Dated: November 12, 14

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CALIFORNIA
By:

27
28
STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO AMEND
MONCRIEF v. CDCR
EASTERN DISTRICT COURT, CASE NO. 12-0414

/s/
Kelli M. Hammond
KELLI M. HAMMOND
Deputy Attorney General
Attorneys for Defendants

1

IT IS SO ORDERED

2
3
4
5

Dated: November 12, 2014

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO AMEND
MONCRIEF v. CDCR
EASTERN DISTRICT COURT, CASE NO. 12-0414