Smith v. City of Stockton et al
Filing
70
STIPULATION and ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 6/16/2017 ORDERING that the scheduling order is modified as follows: Expert Discovery cutoff is CONTINUED to 7/28/2017 and the last day to hear Dispositive Motions is CONTINUED to 9/22/2017. (Zignago, K.)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Lori Rifkin, Esq. [S.B. #244081]
HADSELL STORMER & RENICK LLP
4300 Horton Street, #15
Emeryville, CA 94608
Telephone: (415) 685-3591/Facsimile: (626) 577-7079
Email: lrifkin@hadsellstormer.com
Dan Stormer, Esq. [S.B. #101967]
Brian Olney, Esq. [S.B. #298089]
HADSELL STORMER & RENICK LLP
128 N. Fair Oaks Ave.
Pasadena, CA 91103
Telephone: (626) 585-9600/Facsimile: (626) 577-7079
Emails: dstormer@hadsellstormer.com
bolney@hadsellstormer.com
10
Attorneys for Plaintiff
11
16
DANA A. SUNTAG, State Bar Number: 125127
JOSHUA J. STEVENS, State Bar Number: 238105
HERUM\CRABTREE\SUNTAG
A California Professional Corporation
3757 Pacific Avenue, Suite 222
Stockton, California 95207
Telephone: (209) 472-7700/Facsimile: (209) 472-7986
dsuntag@herumcrabtree.com
jstevens@herumcrabtree.com
17
Attorneys for All Defendants
12
13
14
15
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SACRAMENTO DIVISION
18
19
Nathaniel Smith,
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case No.: 2:15-cv-00363-KJM-AC
Plaintiff,
v.
City of Stockton; Officer Patrick Mayer, Officer
Robin Harrison, and Officer Michael Perez, in
their individual capacities; and Chief of Police
Eric Jones, in his official and individual
capacities,
Defendants.
26
27
28
JOINT STIPULATED REQUEST TO MODIFY
SCHEDULING ORDER; [PROP] ORDER
[Assigned to the Honorable Kimberly J. Mueller
– Courtroom 3]
JOINT STIPULATED REQUEST &
ORDER TO MODIFY SCHEDULING
ORDER
Complaint filed:
Discovery Cut-Off:
Motion Cut-Off:
Trial Date:
February 12, 2015
May 26, 2017
July 14, 2017
TBD
1
Plaintiff NATHANIEL SMITH and Defendants CITY OF STOCKTON,
2
OFFICER ROBIN HARRISON, OFFICER PATRICK MAYER, OFFICER MICHAEL
3
PEREZ, and CHIEF OF POLICE ERIC JONES (hereinafter collectively referred to as
4
“Defendants”), by and through their undersigned counsel of record, and subject to the
5
approval of the court, hereby stipulate as follows:
6
7
Whereas, the discovery cut-off to complete expert discovery is May 26, 2017,
and the last date by which dispositive motions must be heard is July 14, 2017; and
8
Whereas the parties had all expert depositions scheduled to be completed by the
9
end of May. Plaintiff’s only expert, Scott DeFoe, was scheduled to be deposed on
10
May 12, 2017, but this deposition had to be cancelled at the last minute due to the
11
sudden passing of Mr. DeFoe’s mother on the evening of May 11, 2017; and
12
Defendants’ two experts were scheduled to be deposed after Mr. DeFoe; and
13
The parties wish to maintain the status quo in terms of the scheduling of expert
14
depositions with regards to Plaintiff’s expert being deposed first, followed by
15
Defendant’ two experts; and
16
Whereas, the parties jointly request that the expert discovery cut-off date be
17
modified to enable the parties time to complete expert discovery in the manner
18
described above in order to accommodate Mr. DeFoe’s period of bereavement; and
19
Whereas, expert testimony may provide crucial support for a dispositive motion
20
such that the parties request the last day to hear dispositive motions be extended
21
accordingly; and
22
Whereas, Plaintiff is incarcerated, and requests 3 weeks instead of the standard 2
23
weeks to file opposition to Defendants’ anticipated dispositive motion, and Defendants
24
are agreeable with that request in conjunction with the other modifications this
25
stipulation seeks and conditional on the Court granting those modifications; and
26
Whereas, when an act must be done within a specified time, the court may, for
27
good cause, extend the time with or without motion or notice of the court acts, or if a
28
request is made, before the original time expires. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A); see also
JOINT STIPULATED REQUEST TO
MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER ;
[PROP] ORDER
-1-
1
Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc. 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992) (“The district
2
court may modify the pretrial schedule ‘if it cannot be reasonably met despite the
3
diligence of the party seeking the amendment.’”);
4
5
The parties request that the Court modify the operative scheduling order in this
case as follows:
6
7
8
9
10
Expert Discovery Cut-Off
Last Day to Hear Dispositive Motions
File Joint Pretrial Conference Statement
Final Pretrial Conference
Proposed
7/28/17
9/15/171
Unchanged
Unchanged
Based on the foregoing, the parties respectfully request that the Court approve
11
12
Current
5/26/17
7/14/17
11/10/17
12/8/17
this stipulated modification of the scheduling order.
13
Respectfully Submitted,
14
15
Dated: May 17, 2017
16
HADSELL STORMER & RENICK LLP
By:
17
18
19
Dated: May 17, 2017
20
HERUM\CRABTREE\SUNTAG
By:
21
22
/s/ - Lori Rifkin
Lori Rifkin
Attorney for Plaintiff
/s/ - Joshua J. Stevens
Joshua J. Stevens
Attorney for All Defendants
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
Defendants anticipate filing their motion(s) 35 days before the hearing instead of 28 days
before the hearing to give Plaintiff an additional seven days to prepare and file opposition.
JOINT STIPULATED REQUEST TO
MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER ;
-2[PROP] ORDER
1
ORDER
2
The Court, having considered the parties’ stipulation, and good cause appearing,
3
the Joint Stipulated Request to Modify the Scheduling is GRANTED and all parties
4
shall comply with its provisions.
5
The Court modifies the operative scheduling order in this case as follows:
6
Current
5/26/17
7/14/17
11/10/17
12/8/17
7
8
9
10
11
Expert Discovery Cut-Off
Last Day to Hear Dispositive Motions
File Joint Pretrial Conference Statement
Final Pretrial Conference
Proposed
7/28/17
9/22/17
Unchanged
Unchanged
IT IS SO ORDERED.
12
13
DATED: June 16, 2017
14
15
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
JOINT STIPULATED REQUEST TO
MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER ;
[PROP] ORDER
-1-
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?