Perez, III v. Scmidt

Filing 29

STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 11/25/15 ordering ( Discovery due by 2/29/2016, Dispositive Motions due by 5/20/2016.) (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

KAMALA D. HARRIS, State Bar No. 146672
Attorney General of California
ALBERTO L. GONZALEZ , State Bar No. 117605
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
JENNIFER MARQUEZ, State Bar No. 232194
Deputy Attorney General
1300 I Street, Suite 125
P.O. Box 944255
Sacramento, CA 94244-2550
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendant L. Schmidt

8
9
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11
SACRAMENTO DIVISION
12
13
14

JESSE PEREZ, III,

15
16

v.

2:15-cv-0521 CKD PC
Plaintiff, STIPULATION AND
ORDER FOR MODIFICATION OF THE
COURT’S PRETRIAL SCHEDULING
ORDER (DOC. 22)

17
L. SCMIDT,
18
Defendant,
19
20
21
COMES NOW Defendant L. Schmidt, through her attorney of record, and Plaintiff Jesse Perez,

22
23

III, in pro per, and subject to the approval of this Court, hereby stipulate and respectfully request

24

modification of this Court’s Pretrial Scheduling Order of August 4, 2015 (Doc. No. 22). The parties

25

have propounded written discovery and need additional time to complete discovery.

26

///

27

///

28

///
1
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR MODIFICATION OF THE COURT’S PRETRIAL
SCHEDULING ORDER (DOC. 22) (2:15-cv-0521 CKD PC)

1

On September 15, 2015, counsel for Defendant Schmidt sent Plaintiff an authorization for

2

release of relevant medical records and 602 appeals. On or about September 30, 2015, counsel for

3

defendant Schmidt received Plaintiff’s signed authorization. Counsel for defendant has provided

4

Plaintiff with a copy of the relevant medical records and 602 appeals received with the authorization

5

Plaintiff signed.

6

On or about September 28, 2015, Defendant Schmidt propounded one set of special

7

interrogatories and one set of request for production of documents to Plaintiff. The Court’s scheduling

8

order provides that responses to discovery are due forty-five (45) days after the discovery request is

9

served. Plaintiff’s initial due date to respond to Defendant’s written discovery was November 12,

10

2015. Plaintiff requested an extension of time to respond because he was expecting a transfer to a

11

different facility and all his paperwork and property were packed up, which caused a delay in

12

responding. Defendant Schmidt agreed to give Plaintiff until November 30, 2015 to respond to the

13

discovery requests.
On or about October 19, 2015, counsel for Defendant Schmidt received Plaintiff’s first set of

14
15

special interrogatories and request for production of documents. Although Plaintiff’s proof of service

16

was dated October 1, 2015, counsel for Defendant Schmidt did not receive them until October 19,

17

2015. At that time, Defendant Schmidt was on vacation. Defendant Schmidt returned to work on

18

November 2, 2015. Counsel for defendant Schmidt sent a letter to Plaintiff requesting a two week

19

extension of time or from November 14, 2015, up to and including November 30, 2015. Plaintiff has

20

agreed to the extension of time.

21

Because the parties have been diligent in conducting discovery and need additional time to

22

complete discovery, there is good cause to modify the scheduling order. Therefore, the parties propose

23

the following schedule:

24

The discovery completion deadline of November 30, 2015 be extended ninety (90) days or until

25

February 29, 2016. No new discovery requests can be served without leave of court.

26

The pretrial motions deadline of February 19, 2016 be extended ninety (90) days or until May

27

20, 2016.

28

///
2
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR MODIFICATION OF THE COURT’S PRETRIAL
SCHEDULING ORDER (DOC. 22) (2:15-cv-0521 CKD PC)

1

IT IS SO STIPULATED

2
3

Attorney General’s Office of California

Dated: November 20, 2015

By:_/s/ Jennifer Marquez
_____________________________
JENNIFER MARQUEZ
Deputy Attorney General
Attorneys for Defendant L. Schmidt

4
5
6
7
8
9

Dated: November 10, 2015

IN PRO PER

10
11

By:_/s/ Jesse Perez, III
_______________________________
JESSE PEREZ, III
Plaintiff, In Pro Per

12
13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED

15
16
17

Dated: November 25, 2015

_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR MODIFICATION OF THE COURT’S PRETRIAL
SCHEDULING ORDER (DOC. 22) (2:15-cv-0521 CKD PC)