Mecklenberg v. Georgetown Divide Public Utility District

Filing 41

STIPULATION and ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 12/8/2017 EXTENDING the Discovery deadline to 2/16/2018. (Hunt, G)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Barbara A. Brenner (SBN 142222) Nubia I. Goldstein (SBN 272305) CHURCHWELL WHITE LLP 1414 K Street, 3rd Floor Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 468-0950 Phone (916) 468-0951 Fax Barbara@churchwellwhite.com fees exempt pursuant to Government Code §6103 Attorneys for Defendant GEORGETOWN DIVIDE PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT CENTER FOR DISABILITY ACCESS Raymond G. Ballister, Jr. (SBN 111282) Mail: P.O. Box 262490 San Diego, CA 92196-2490 Deliveries: 9845 Erma Road, Ste. 300 San Diego, CA 92131 (858) 375-7385 Phone (888) 422-5191 Fax SaraG@potterhandy.com Attorneys for Plaintiff STACY MECKLENBERG 14 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 16 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 17 STACY MECKLENBERG, Case No.: 2:14-cv-00750-TLN-DAD Plaintiff, 18 STIPULATION AND ORDER EXTENDING DISCOVERY DEADLINES 19 vs. 20 GEORGETOWN DIVIDE PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT and DOES 1 through 10, 21 Defendants. 22 23 24 Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, rules 6(b) and 16(b)(4), and Local Rule 25 144, Plaintiff Stacy Mecklenberg (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant Georgetown Divide Public Utility 26 District (“Defendant”) (collectively, the “Parties”), by and through their respective counsel of 27 record, hereby submit this stipulation and proposed order extending all applicable discovery 28 deadlines. {CW049855.4} 1 Stipulation and Order Extending Discovery Deadlines 1 WHEREAS, Plaintiff filed the above-captioned action on March 24, 2014; 2 WHEREAS, on November 6, 2014, the above-entitled Court issued a Pretrial Scheduling 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Order requiring discovery in this action to be completed by June 19, 2015. WHEREAS, on January 7, 2017, the Parties submitted a Joint Status Report requesting the Court allow the parties to conduct further discovery. WHEREAS, on January 23, 2017, this Court issued a Supplemental Pretrial Scheduling Order requiring discovery in this action to be completed by December 18, 2017. WHEREAS, after an initial notice of deposition was issued by Plaintiff’s counsel on September 22, 2017, the Parties agreed to hold the deposition of Defendant’s Person Most Knowledgeable, Stephanie Beck, on November 16, 2017, at 3:30 p.m. WHEREAS, after an initial subpoena for personal appearance was issued by Plaintiff’s 12 counsel on September 22, 2017, the Parties agreed to hold the deposition of non-party Teresa 13 Stinson on November 16, 2017, at 5:30 p.m. 14 WHEREAS, after an initial notice of deposition was issued by Defendant’s counsel on 15 September 26, 2017, the Parties agreed to hold the deposition of Plaintiff on November 17, 2017, 16 at 2:00 p.m. 17 WHEREAS, after an initial subpoena for personal appearance was issued by Defendant’s 18 counsel on September 26, 2017, the Parties agreed to hold the deposition of non-party Cindy 19 Southerland on November 17, 2017, at 5:00 p.m. 20 WHEREAS, on November 16, 2017, at approximately 12:00 p.m., Mary Melton, counsel 21 for Plaintiff, contacted Nubia Goldstein, counsel for Defendant, via email and telephone 22 informing Defendant’s counsel that the depositions of Stephanie Beck and Teresa Stinson would 23 not go forward as scheduled later that day. 24 WHEREAS, on November 16, 2017, at approximately 1:15 p.m., Raymond Ballister, 25 counsel for Plaintiff, contacted Ms. Goldstein informing her that that the depositions of Plaintiff 26 and Cindy Southerland would not go forward as scheduled for the following day. Mr. Ballister 27 indicated that the cancellation was due to Plaintiff’s intention to produce additional documents 28 responsive to the requests for production of documents contained within Defendant’s notice of {CW049855.4} 2 Stipulation and Order Extending Discovery Deadlines 1 2 deposition of Plaintiff. WHEREAS, on November 16, 2017, counsel for Defendant, Nubia Goldstein, requested 3 an estimated date of production for the additional documents promised in Mr. Ballister’s 4 voicemail of that same date. 5 WHEREAS, counsel for Defendant is not available to defend or take depositions between 6 December 4, 2017, and December 15, 2017, due to a trial scheduled in Santa Clara County 7 Superior Court, case number 14-CV-268594. 8 WHEREAS, to date, counsel for Plaintiff has not provided new dates for the four 9 cancelled depositions, nor have they produced the additional documents Mr. Ballister indicated in 10 his voicemail of November 16, 2017, which Plaintiff was still waiting to obtain, and which was 11 the reason for cancelling Plaintiff’s and Plaintiff’s wife’s depositions. 12 13 WHEREAS, good cause exists for this extension to prevent Defendant from being prejudiced by the delay in deposition scheduling. 14 THEREFORE, the Parties hereby stipulate: 15 1. All discovery shall be completed by February 16, 2018. In this context, 16 “completed” means that all discovery shall have been conducted so that all depositions have been 17 taken and any disputes relative to discovery shall have been resolved by appropriate order if 18 necessary and, where discovery has been ordered, the order has been obeyed. All motions to 19 compel discovery must be noticed on the magistrate judge’s calendar in accordance with the local 20 rules of this Court. 21 22 DATED: November 28, 2017 CHURCHWELL WHITE LLP 23 By__/s/ Nubia I. Goldstein_______________ NUBIA I. GOLDSTEIN Attorneys for Defendant Georgetown Divide Public Utility District 24 25 26 27 28 {CW049855.4} 3 Stipulation and Order Extending Discovery Deadlines 1 DATED: November 28, 2017 CENTER FOR DISABILITY ACCESS 2 3 By: /s/ Sara N. Gunderson________________ SARA N. GUNDERSON Attorneys for Plaintiff Stacy Mecklenberg 4 5 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 Dated: December 8, 2017 9 10 Troy L. Nunley United States District Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 {CW049855.4} 4 Stipulation and Order Extending Discovery Deadlines

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?