Padilla v. Beard et al

Filing 117

STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 4/6/16 ORDERING that the parties' Request to modify the scheduling order is GRANTED; The Expert Discovery Cut-off is RE-SET for 6/13/16 and the deadline for hearing Dispositive Motions is RE-SET for 8/12/2016. (Mena-Sanchez, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

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
LORI RIFKIN, State Bar No. 244081
RIFKIN LAW OFFICE
P.O. Box 19169
Oakland, California 94619
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Attorney for Plaintiff

12
13

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

14

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

15

SACRAMENTO DIVISION

16
17
JERMAINE PADILLA,

No. 2:14-cv-1118 KJM-CKD

18
Plaintiff, STIPULATION & ORDER TO MODIFY
SCHEDULING ORDER

19
v.
20
21
22

JEFFREY BEARD, et al.,
Defendants.

23
24

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4), Local Rule 143, and Dkt. No. 115,

25

the parties, through their counsel of record, jointly request a modification of the December 3,

26

2015 Scheduling Order, Dkt. No. 78, for a 45-day extension of the deadline to complete expert

27

discovery and a 49-day extension of the deadline to hear dispositive motions.

28
1
Stipulation & [Proposed] Order to Modify Scheduling Order

1

Currently, the expert discovery cut-off is April 29, 2016, and the last day to hear dispositive

2

motions is June 17, 2016. The parties jointly propose that these dates be modified so that the

3

expert discovery cut-off is June 13, 2016, and the last day to hear dispositive motions is August 5,

4

2016. The parties submit that this modest extension should not require the alteration of any other

5

dates in the scheduling order, including the scheduled trial date of January 9, 2017.

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

primarily focuses on the diligence of the party seeking the modification. Johnson, 975 F.2d at

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

amendment).

15

Good cause exists to grant this stipulation because a settlement conference is scheduled

16

before Magistrate Judge Newman on May 2, 2016, Dkt. No. 114, and, at the suggestion of the

17

Court, the parties have mutually agreed to put off completion of expert depositions until after that

18

date. The settlement conference was originally scheduled for April 1, 2016, with expert

19

depositions scheduled to take place subsequently if the case did not settle, but the settlement

20

conference was continued in order to accommodate Plaintiff’s mental health considerations. Dkt.

21

No. 113. The parties timely disclosed expert reports on February 26, 2016, and expert

22

depositions are the only outstanding expert discovery in this case.1 The parties have already

23

ascertained expert availability and agreed upon deposition dates that will allow them to promptly

24

complete expert discovery by the proposed June 13, 2016 deadline if the case does not settle on

25

May 2, 2016. The parties believe the completion of expert discovery will aid the Court in

26

1

27
28

The only other outstanding discovery is the completion of Plaintiff’s deposition, which must be
completed by September 30, 2016 if he is to testify at trial. Dkt. No. 98. The Court made this
modification to the scheduling order in recognition of Plaintiff’s mental status that prevented him
from completing his deposition on January 7, 2016. Id.
2
Stipulation & [Proposed] Order to Modify Scheduling Order

1

considering any dispositive motions, and therfore propose that the hearing date for any such

2

motions be extended from June 17, 2016 to August 5, 2016 so that the parties can utilize expert

3

reports and testimony.

4

The parties submit that they have diligently pursued expert discovery in this case, and seek

5

this modest extension following the suggestion of the Court and the re-scheduling of the

6

settlement conference. The parties have mutually agreed to postpone expert depositions until

7

after the May 2, 2016 settlement conference in order to avoid any unnecessary costs to the parties

8

if the case does settle.

9

The parties therefore propose the following modification to the Scheduling Order:

10

Expert Discovery Deadline

June 13, 2016

11

Deadline to Hear Dispositive Motions

August 5, 2016

12

The parties do not seek an extension of any other deadlines.

13

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

14
15

Dated: April 4, 2016

Respectfully submitted,

16

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

17
18
19

/s/ Diana Esquivel

20

DIANA ESQUIVEL
Deputy Attorney General
Attorneys for Defendants

21
22
23

Dated: April 4, 2016

RIFKIN LAW OFFICE

24

/s/ Lori Rifkin

25

Lori Rifkin
Attorney for Plaintiff

26
27
28
3

Stipulation & [Proposed] Order to Modify Scheduling Order

1

ORDER

2

Based on the parties’ stipulated request and good cause appearing:

3

1. The parties’ request to modify the scheduling order is GRANTED.

4

2. The expert discovery cut-off is re-set for June 13, 2016 and the deadline for hearing

5
6
7

dispositive motions is re-set for August 12, 2016. 2
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 6, 2016

_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2

27
28

The court has been advised that August 5, 2016 is not a date available on the District
Court’s law and motion calendar. Accordingly, the date has been revised to August 12, 2016, a
date which is available.
4
Stipulation & [Proposed] Order to Modify Scheduling Order