Kessler v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation

Filing 10

STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. on 10/14/2015 ORDERING 9 Initial Expert Witnesses Disclosure due by 1/25/2016; Rebuttal Expert Witness Disclosure by 3/22/2016; and Discovery due by 4/22/2016. All other dates will remain the same as provided for in the 7/14/2015 scheduling order. (Reader, L)

Download PDF
(SPACE BELOW FOR FILING STAMP ONLY) 1 2 3 4 5 6 STEPHANIE L. QUINN (SBN 216655) RAYMOND TUASON (SBN 279346) MURPHY, CAMPBELL, ALLISTON & QUINN 8801 Folsom Boulevard, Suite 230 Sacramento, CA 95826 Telephone: (916) 400-2300 Fax: (916) 400-2311 Attorneys for Defendant NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION, dba AMTRAK 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA - SACRAMENTO 9 10 LINDA KESSLER, MURPHY, CAMPBELL, ALLISTON & QUINN 11 12 13 14 15 Case No. 2:15-CV-00728-GEB-AC Plaintiff, v. NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION, doing business as AMTRAK, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES TO MODIFY THE SCHEDULING ORDER AND EXTEND DISCOVERY DEADLINES; [PROPOSED] ORDER Defendants. 16 17 18 STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES TO MODIFY THE SCHEDULING ORDER AND 19 EXTEND DISCOVERY DEADLINES 20 Pursuant to Rules 16(b)(4) and 29 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendant 21 NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION dba AMTRAK (“Defendant” or 22 “AMTRAK”) and Plaintiff LINDA KESSLER (“Plaintiff” or “KESSLER”), by and through their 23 attorneys of record, hereby stipulate to modify the scheduling order filed July 14, 2015, to 24 extend the time for discovery deadlines previously set in this matter. 25 26 27 28 The initial expert witness disclosure deadline is currently scheduled for November 24, 2015. The parties request a two month extension of this deadline to January 25, 2016. The rebuttal expert witness disclosure deadline is currently scheduled for January 22, 2016. The parties request a two month extension of this deadline to March 22, 2016. 29 -130 31 STIPULATION TO MODIFY THE SCHEDULING ORDER AND EXTEND DISCOVERY DEADLINES; [PROPOSED] ORDER Discovery is currently scheduled to be completed by March 22, 2016. The parties 1 2 request a one month extension of this deadline to April 22, 2016. All other dates will remain the same as provided for in the July 14, 2015 scheduling 3 4 order. GOOD 5 6 CAUSE EXISTS FOR THE REQUESTED MODIFICATIONS AND EXTENSIONS 7 Defendant’s lead trial counsel, Stephanie Quinn, is currently on unexpected leave 8 due to the very recent adoption of an infant. As such, Ms. Quinn will be unable to take 9 Plaintiff’s deposition previously scheduled to take place on October 20, 2015. Moreover, despite the parties’ diligent efforts to schedule the depositions of Plaintiff’s 11 MURPHY, CAMPBELL, ALLISTON & QUINN 10 medical treaters prior to the expert witness disclosure deadline, the parties will be unable to 12 timely complete these depositions due to Ms. Quinn’s unexpected leave. For these reasons, counsel for the parties have stipulated to modify the scheduling 13 14 order and extend discovery deadlines. 15 // 16 // 17 // 18 // 19 // 20 // 21 // 22 // 23 // 24 // 25 // 26 // 27 // 28 // 29 -230 31 STIPULATION TO MODIFY THE SCHEDULING ORDER AND EXTEND DISCOVERY DEADLINES; [PROPOSED] ORDER All other dates will remain the same as provided for in the July 14, 2015 scheduling 1 2 3 4 order. IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED DATED: October 14, 2015 MURPHY, CAMPBELL, ALLISTON & QUINN 5 By: 6 7 8 /s/ RAYMOND TUASON STEPHANIE L. QUINN (SBN 216655) RAYMOND TUASON (SBN 279346) Attorneys for Defendant NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION, dba AMTRAK 9 10 DATED: October 14, 2015 GANONG LAW MURPHY, CAMPBELL, ALLISTON & QUINN 11 12 By: 13 /s/ PHILIP W. GANONG PHILIP W. GANONG (SBN 88414) Attorneys for Plaintiff LINDA KESSLER 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED: 16 Dated: October 14, 2015 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 -330 31 STIPULATION TO MODIFY THE SCHEDULING ORDER AND EXTEND DISCOVERY DEADLINES; [PROPOSED] ORDER

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?