Goodman v. County of San Joaquin et al

Filing 28

STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 11/18/14 ORDERING Good cause appearing, the parties' stipulated request for a continuance of the pretrial deadlines and trial is GRANTED. The operative Pretrial Scheduling Order and all dates already set in this case are VACATED, and an Amended Pretrial Scheduling Order will be issued. (Becknal, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

KAMALA D. HARRIS, State Bar No. 146672
Attorney General of California
CHRISTOPHER J. BECKER, State Bar No. 230529
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
DIANA ESQUIVEL, State Bar No. 202954
Deputy Attorney General
1300 I Street, Suite 125
P.O. Box 944255
Sacramento, CA 94244-2550
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendants Robles and Rodriguez

8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SACRAMENTO DIVISION

11
12
MIKKOS GOODMAN,

No. 2:13-cv-00538 MCE-KJN

13
14
v.
15
16
17

Plaintiff, STIPULATION AND ORDER TO
MODIFY THE SCHEDULING ORDER
TO EXTEND DEADLINES BY SIXTY
DAYS AND TO CONTINUE THE TRIAL

COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN, et al.,

Trial Date:
September 14, 2015
Action Filed: March 18, 2013

Defendants.

18
19

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) and Local Rule 143, the parties, through

20

their counsel of record, agree to and request a sixty-day extension of the scheduling deadlines and

21

a continuance of the trial to a date after December 2015. Good cause exists to grant this

22

stipulation because the parties require more time to complete discovery and Defendant Rodriguez

23

has a conflict with the current trial date.

24

A scheduling order may be modified only upon a showing of good cause and by leave of

25

Court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A), 16(b)(4); see, e.g., Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975

26

F.2d 604, 609 (describing the factors a court should consider in ruling on such a motion). In

27

considering whether a party moving for a schedule modification has good cause, the Court

28

primarily focuses on the diligence of the party seeking the modification. Johnson, 975 F.2d at
1
Stipulation and Proposed Order to Modify the Scheduling Order to Extend Deadlines By Sixty Days and to Continue
the Trial (2:13-cv-00538 MCE KJN)

1

609 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 advisory committee’s notes of 1983 amendment). “The district

2

court may modify the pretrial schedule ‘if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the

3

party seeking the amendment.’” Id. (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 advisory committee notes of 1983

4

amendment).

5
6

On April 10, 2014, the Court issued a Scheduling Order (ECF No. 18) setting the following
deadlines:

7

Fact Discovery

November 14, 2014

8

Expert Disclosures

January 14, 2015

9

Last Day to Hear Dispositive Motions

May 14, 2015

10

Settlement Conference

May 21, 2015 at 10 a.m.

11

Joint Final Pretrial Conference Statement

July 2, 2015

12

Motions in Limine

July 2, 2015

13

Trial Briefs

July 9, 2015

14

Opposition to Motions in Limine

July 9, 2015

15

Reply to Opposition to Motions in Lmine:

July 16, 2015

16

Final Pretrial Conference

July 23, 2015 at 2 p.m.

17

Trial

September 14, 2015 at 9 a.m.

18

The parties request a sixty-day extension of all the pretrial deadlines because they require

19

more time to complete fact discovery, which will in turn affect the remaining deadlines. The

20

parties have exchanged and responded to written discovery. Plaintiff’s deposition was completed

21

on November 5, 2014, and the depositions of Sandra Davis and Niesha Barrell, pertinent

22

witnesses Plaintiff identified, were completed on November 10. However, the depositions of the

23

Defendants have not been taken due to several factors beyond counsel’s control.

24

Plaintiff Mikkos Goodman was arrested in July 2014, and has been incarcerated at Santa

25

Rita Jail in Dublin, California. He is being held without bail, pending attempted-murder-related

26

charges. Because of Plaintiff’s incarceration, his attorneys were unable to make him available for

27

deposition until recently. Plaintiff’s counsel have also experienced difficulty meeting with their

28

client to discuss other case- and discovery-related matters with him. The parties obtained an
2
Stipulation and Proposed Order to Modify the Scheduling Order to Extend Deadlines By Sixty Days and to Continue
the Trial (2:13-cv-00538 MCE KJN)

1

order from the Magistrate Judge that resulted in their ability to take Plaintiff’s deposition at the

2

county jail on November 5, 2014. (See ECF No. 25.)

3

The parties did not take Plaintiff’s deposition sooner because, in addition to his

4

incarceration, his attorney, Ben Nisenbaum, was in trial during the entire month of September

5

into early October. Mr. Nisenbaum spent the majority of the summer preparing for trial. Mr.

6

Nisenbaum’s trial also prevented him from taking the Defendants’ depositions.

7

The parties have tentatively scheduled the depositions of Robles and Rodriguez for

8

December 5. Counsel are meeting and conferring concerning the scheduling of the depositions of

9

the County of San Joaquin Defendants.

10

The parties also request a continuance of trial because Defendant Rodriguez, who is one of

11

the primary defendants, is not available for trial in September 2015. Rodriguez is scheduled to be

12

on vacation during the current trial date. He purchased the family out-of-state vacation almost a

13

year before the Court issued its Scheduling Order in April 2014. Rodriguez has already paid for

14

the vacation and cannot reschedule it without incurring substantial expense. Several months ago,

15

Rodriguez’s attorney informed all counsel of the conflict. The parties did not seek modification

16

of the Scheduling Order at that time because they believed it more prudent to wait and see if any

17

other scheduling deadline needed to be modified and make a single request to the Court. Due to

18

trials Plaintiff’s counsel and the attorneys for the County of Joaquin Defendants already have in

19

late 2015, the parties request that the trial be continued to a date after December 2015 based on

20

the Court’s calendar.

21

///

22

///

23

///

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28
3
Stipulation and Proposed Order to Modify the Scheduling Order to Extend Deadlines By Sixty Days and to Continue
the Trial (2:13-cv-00538 MCE KJN)

1
2

IT IS SO STIPULATED.
Dated: November 12, 2014

Respectfully submitted,

3

KAMALA D. HARRIS
Attorney General of California
CHRISTOPHER J. BECKER
Supervising Deputy Attorney General

4
5
6

/s/ Diana Esquivel

7

DIANA ESQUIVEL
Deputy Attorney General
Attorneys for Defendants Robles and
Rodriguez

8
9
10

Dated: November 12, 2014

MAYALL, HURLEY, P.C.

11
/s/ Mark E. Berry

12

MARK E. BERRY
DERICK E. KONZ
Attorneys for Defendants County of San
Joaquin, Adam Grubb, and Robert Clearly

13
14
15
16

Dated: November 12, 2014

LAW OFFICES OF JOHN L. BURRIS

17

/s/ Benjamin Nisenbaum

18

JOHN L. BURRIS
BENJAMIN NISENBAUM
Attorneys for Plaintiff Mikkos Goodman

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4

Stipulation and Proposed Order to Modify the Scheduling Order to Extend Deadlines By Sixty Days and to Continue
the Trial (2:13-cv-00538 MCE KJN)

1

ORDER

2

Good cause appearing, the parties’ stipulated request for a continuance of the pretrial

3

deadlines and trial is GRANTED. The operative Pretrial Scheduling Order and all dates already

4

set in this case are VACATED, and an Amended Pretrial Scheduling Order will be issued.

5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6

Dated: November 18, 2014

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
Stipulation and Proposed Order to Modify the Scheduling Order to Extend Deadlines By Sixty Days and to Continue
the Trial (2:13-cv-00538 MCE KJN)