Smith v. City of Stockton et al

Filing 35

STIPULATION and ORDER to Modify Scheduling Order signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 6/8/16, ORDERING that the last day for expert disclosure is 10/3/16, and the last day for rebuttal expert reports is 10/24/16. (Kastilahn, A)

JOHN M. LUEBBERKE, City Attorney

1 State Bar No. 164893

TED DANIEL WOOD, Deputy City Attorney

2 State Bar No. 191768

425 N. El Dorado Street, 2nd Floor

3 Stockton, CA 95202

Telephone: [phone]

4 Facsimile: [phone]
5 Attorneys for Defendants

City of Stockton, Robin Harrison, Patrick Mayer,

6 Michael Perez, and Eric Jones
7

LORI RIFKIN, SBN 244081

8 RIFKIN LAW OFFICE

P.O. Box 19169

9 Oakland, CA 94169

Telephone: [phone]

10 Facsimile: [phone]
11 Attorney for Plaintiff
12
13
14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

15

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SACRAMENTO DIVISION

16
17 Nathaniel Smith,
18
19

Plaintiff,
v.

20 City of Stockton; Officer Mayer, Officer
Robin Harrison, Officer Michael Perez,
21 and former Chief of Police Blair Ulring, in
their individual capacities; and Chief of
22 Police Eric Jones, in his official capacity,
23

Case No. 2:15-cv-00363-KJM-AC

STIPULATED REQUEST AND
ORDER TO MODIFY
SCHEDULING ORDER
Judge: Hon. Kimberly J. Mueller

Defendants.

24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATED REQUEST AND ORDER TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER

1

The discovery cut-off in this case is currently November 29, 2016. Dkt. 29.

2 The expert disclosure deadline is currently July 29, 2016, with a rebuttal expert
3 disclosure deadline of September 1, 2016. Id. The parties in this matter jointly
4 request a modification of the expert disclosure dates to enable each party to
5 complete sufficient fact discovery prior to expert disclosure. The parties do not
6 anticipate that this will require any modification of the discovery cut-off or
7 subsequent schedule in this case.
8

When an act must be done within a specified time, the court may, for good

9 cause, extend the time with or without motion or notice if the court acts, or if a
10 request is made, before the original time expires. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A). “The
11 district court may modify the pretrial schedule ‘if it cannot reasonably be met
12 despite the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.’” Johnson v. Mammoth
13 Recreations, Inc. 975, F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 16
14 advisory committee notes of 1983 amendment).
15

Plaintiff served requests for production on February 3, 2016 to which

16 Defendants have not yet completed their responsive production. For example,
17 Defendants have not yet produced responsive electronically stored information
18 (ESI), although they have represented that they are in the process of doing so, have
19 duly undertaken electronic searches, and will complete production by June 15, 2016.
20 Additionally, Defendants just produced many of the non-ESI responsive documents
21 in the week of May 23, 2016. As a result, Plaintiff was compelled to postpone the
22 first group of depositions by Plaintiff that had been scheduled to begin in May and
23 June. As a result, Plaintiff will not be able to meet the current expert disclosure
24 deadline, despite diligence in serving discovery requests and scheduling depositions
25 in anticipation of this date. Defendants have maintained that they are responding
26 diligently and with all possible speed, thereby necessitating an extension of the
27 current deadlines. An extension of the pre-expert disclosure discovery period will
28
1
STIPULATED REQUEST AND ORDER TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER

1 allow for both parties to complete depositions and subsequent related discovery.

The parties’ proposed modification of the scheduling order is (original

2

3 deadline noted in parentheses):
4

Last day for expert disclosure: October 3, 2016 (original July 29, 2016)

5

Last day for rebuttal expert reports: October 24, 2016 (original September 1,

6 2016)
7

Close of discovery: November 29, 2016 (unchanged)

8

The parties respectfully request that the Court approve this stipulated

9 modification of the scheduling order.
10
11

Dated: June 6, 2016

Respectfully submitted,
JOHN M. LUEBBERKE, City
Attorney
TED DANIEL WOOD, Deputy City
Attorney

12
13
14

/s/ Ted Wood
TED DANIEL WOOD, Deputy City
Attorney
Attorneys for Defendants

15
16
17
18

Dated: June 6, 2016

RIFKIN LAW OFFICE
/s/ Lori Rifkin
Lori Rifkin
Attorney for Plaintiff

19
20
21
22

The Court finds good cause to grant the parties’ stipulated request to modify

23 the scheduling order, and modifies the scheduling order as set forth above.
24

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

25 Dated: June 8, 2016
26
27

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

28
2
STIPULATED REQUEST AND ORDER TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER