Shannon v. County of Sacramento
ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 8/17/17 ORDERING:(1) Shannon's motion to modify the schedule is DENIED, without prejudice, forfailure to meet and confer. Any future motion to modify the schedule shouldinclude a certificati on that includes a brief summary of meet and confer efforts, as this court's standing order requires. See Standing Order at 3, ECF No. 3-1; (2) Shannon is ORDERED to SHOW CAUSE, within seven (7) days of this order, why monetary sanctions in the amount of $250 should not be issued against him for his failure to comply with this court's Standing Order. (Becknal, R)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SALVADOR SHANNON, as an individual
and as a successor in interest to RYAN
No. 2:15-CV-00967 KJM DB
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, a
government entity, TIMOTHY JONES, an
individual; and JOSEPH REEVE, an
Plaintiff Salvador Shannon moves to modify the schedule to extend the deadlines
for fact discovery, expert discovery, and dispositive motions, which defendants oppose. Mot.,
ECF No. 77; Opp’n, ECF No. 78. The parties have regularly worked together, adjusting to travel
constraints and scheduling conflicts since discovery began in June 2016 and repeatedly
stipulating to schedule modifications the court has approved. Mot. at 3; Opp’n at 2–3; see also
ECF No. 58 (adopting parties’ stipulation to extend fact discovery from January 13, 2017 to May
15, 2017); ECF No. 70 (adopting stipulation to extend again to May 19, 2017). Yet Shannon here
moves to modify the schedule without having discussed the matter with defense counsel:
Shannon’s motion does not contain the meet and confer certification this court’s standing order
requires, see Mot., and plaintiff’s counsel has not communicated with defense counsel about any
subject since the close of fact discovery on May 19, 2017 and filing this motion originally1 on
July 5, 2017, see Motooka Decl. ¶ 30, ECF No. 78-1. Shannon’s failure to meet and confer is
particularly inexplicable where the basis for Shannon’s motion, which is defendants’ June 12,
2017 letter providing inadvertently omitted initial disclosures, expressly offered to permit
additional depositions after the close of discovery. See Lucero Decl. Ex. E (June 17, 2017 letter),
ECF No. 77-1 (explaining defendants “would have no objection to making Detective Lonteen
available for deposition, should [plaintiff] wish to depose him”).
Given the parties’ history of working together, and the likely good meet-andconfer would have done here, the court cannot countenance Shannon’s failure to do so.
Accordingly, the court orders as follows:
(1) Shannon’s motion to modify the schedule is DENIED, without prejudice, for
failure to meet and confer. Any future motion to modify the schedule should
include a certification that includes a brief summary of meet and confer efforts,
as this court’s standing order requires. See Standing Order at 3, ECF No. 3-1;
(2) Shannon is ORDERED to SHOW CAUSE, within seven (7) days of this order,
why monetary sanctions in the amount of $250 should not be issued against
him for his failure to comply with this court’s Standing Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
This order resolves ECF No. 77.
DATED: August 17, 2017.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Shannon first filed a motion to modify the schedule on July 5, 2017. ECF No. 75. After
the court noted the motion was defective and was not noticed for hearing, ECF No. 76, Shannon
refiled his motion on July 11, 2017, ECF No. 77.
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?