Perez, III v. Scmidt

Filing 35

STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 4/28/2016 and agreed between the parties to MODIFY the 22 Scheduling Order. Discovery is extended until 8/18/2016; and the Pretrial Motions deadline is extended until 10/20/2016. (Yin, K)

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,

2:15-cv-0521 CKD PC

15
16

Plaintiff, STIPULATION AND
ORDER FOR MODIFICATION OF THE
COURT’S PRETRIAL SCHEDULING
ORDERS (DOCS. 22 and 31)

v.

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

22
23

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

24

request modification of this Court’s Pretrial Scheduling Orders (Doc. 22 and 31.) The parties need

25

additional time to complete discovery.

26

///

27

///

28

///
1
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR MODIFICATION OF THE COURT’S PRETRIAL
SCHEDULING ORDERS (DOCS. 22 and 31) (2:15-cv-0521 CKD PC)

1

On December 10, 2015, Defendant served Plaintiff with Special Interrogatories, Set Two.

2

The Court’s scheduling order provides that responses to discovery are due forty-five (45) days

3

after the discovery request is served. Plaintiff’s due date to respond to Defendant’s written

4

discovery was January 24, 2016. Defendant received Plaintiff’s responses on or about January 27,

5

2016. After reviewing Plaintiff’s responses, Defendant sent Plaintiff a meet and confer letter on

6

January 28, 2016 to address deficiencies in Plaintiff’s responses. Defendant requested that Plaintiff

7

provide amended responses by February 11, 2016. Plaintiff then sent Defendant a letter dated

8

February 13, 2016 stating that he was working on the discovery responses and would have them to

9

defendant “ASAP.”

10

The week of March 7, 2016, counsel for Defendant was unexpectedly out of the office and

11

out of town due to a family medical emergency. When counsel for Defendant returned to the office

12

on March 14, 2016, counsel worked on trial preparation for a trial that started March 29, 2016 and

13

lasted until April 5, 2016.

14

On or about March 21, 2016, counsel for Defendant received a letter from Plaintiff stating

15

that he had been temporarily transferred to Lerdo Pretrial Facility in Bakersfield, California, to

16

attend a criminal proceeding in Kern County Superior Court. Plaintiff anticipates he will be at that

17

location for four months or until the end of July of 2016. Plaintiff’s letter also stated that he did not

18

have his discovery responses (interrogatories) that he was working on as part of our meet and

19

confer efforts. Plaintiff also does not have his complaint.

20

On April 8, 2016, counsel for Defendant responded to plaintiff’s letter. Defendant sent

21

plaintiff a courtesy copy of his complaint and the discovery responses at issue, along with

22

defendant’s prior meet and confer letter dated January 27, 2016. Defendant requested plaintiff

23

provide his responses no later than May 2, 2016. If Plaintiff and Defendant are unable to resolve

24

the discovery issue, Defendant will need to file a motion to compel further responses.

25

Additionally, on January 25, 2016, Defendant served Plaintiff with a Notice to Consumer

26

regarding a subpoena for Plaintiff’s medical records from San Joaquin General Hospital and a copy

27

of the subpoena for Plaintiff’s medical records from San Joaquin General Hospital. Plaintiff did

28

not object. Due to a clerical error regarding plaintiff’s date of birth, the subpoena has been
2
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR MODIFICATION OF THE COURT’S PRETRIAL
SCHEDULING ORDERS (DOCS. 22 and 31) (2:15-cv-0521 CKD PC)

1

re-issued and documents are requested to be produced on April 22, 2016.

2

Once written discovery is completed, Defendant may wish to depose Plaintiff. Pursuant to

3

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 30 and the Court’s Scheduling Order (Doc. 22), Defendant must

4

provide at least fourteen (14) days notice to depose Plaintiff. Plaintiff is currently under the

5

custody of Kern County at Lerdo Pretrial Facility until, at least, the end of July of 2016. Plaintiff

6

will return to the custody of High Desert State Prison sometime thereafter. Thus, Plaintiff’s

7

deposition date will likely need to be coordinated with county officials at Lerdo Pretrial Facility, who

8

require about ten days notice for scheduling depositions.
This is the third stipulation to modify the court’s scheduling order. The parties previously

9
10

stipulated and the court approved a modification of the court’s scheduling order. (Docs. 27 and

11

29).

12

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

13

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

14

propose the following schedule:

15
16

The discovery completion deadline of April 29, 2016 be extended one hundred and ten days
(110) days or until August 18, 2016.

17

The pretrial motions deadline of July 20, 2016 be extended ninety (90) days or until

18

October 20, 2016.

19

///

20

///

21

///

22

///

23

///

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///
3
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR MODIFICATION OF THE COURT’S PRETRIAL
SCHEDULING ORDERS (DOCS. 22 and 31) (2:15-cv-0521 CKD PC)

1

IT IS SO STIPULATED

2
3

Attorney General’s Office of California

Dated: April 26, 2016

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

4
5
6
7
8
9

Dated: April 21, 2016

IN PRO PER
By: /s/ Jesse Perez, III
_______________________________
JESSE PEREZ, III
Plaintiff, In Pro Per

10
11
12
13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED

15

Dated: April 28, 2016

_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20

SA2015300903

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR MODIFICATION OF THE COURT’S PRETRIAL
SCHEDULING ORDERS (DOCS. 22 and 31) (2:15-cv-0521 CKD PC)