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)
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?