Foothill Church, et al. v. Rouillard

Filing 63

STIPULATION and ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 3/1/2017 ORDERING that the Court hereby MODIFIES the dates and deadlines set out in the 51 Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order as follows: 8/31/2017: Close of discovery; 9/15/2017 : Expert Disclosures Due; 10/6/2017: Supplemental Expert Disclosures Due; 11/3/2017: Close of Expert Discovery; 1/12/2018: Last Date for Hearing on Dispositive Motions; 4/27/2018: Parties Submit Joint Pretrial Conference Statement; 5/18/2018: Final Pretrial Conference; 6/11/2018: Trial Briefs Due; 6/25/2018: Trial at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom No. 3. All other provisions of the Pretrial Scheduling Order remain in effect. (Zignago, K.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SACRAMENTO DIVISION

11
12
13

FOOTHILL CHURCH, CALVARY
CHAPEL OF CHINO HILLS, and
SHEPHERD OF THE HILLS CHURCH,

2:15-CV-02165-KJM-EFB

14
Plaintiffs, STIPULATION AND ORDER TO
MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER

15
v.
16
17
18
19

MICHELLE ROUILLARD, in her official
capacity as Director of the California
Department of Managed Health Care,

Dept:
Judge:

Courtroom 3, 15th Fl.
Hon. Kimberly J. Mueller

Defendant.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Stipulation to Modify Scheduling Order (CV-02165-KJM-EFB)

1

Plaintiffs Foothill Church, Calvary Chapel Chino Hills, and Shepherd of the Hills Church,

2

and Defendant Michelle Rouillard, in her official capacity as Director of the California

3

Department of Managed Health Care (Director), by and through their attorneys of record,

4

stipulate and apply to modify the Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order consistent with the provision

5

of the Scheduling Order which intended that discovery proceed after a ruling on the Director’s

6

Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint, which ruling has not yet been issued by

7

the Court.

8

In support of this application, the parties state that WHEREAS:

9

1.

Plaintiffs filed their Complaint on October 16, 2015, and the Court the Court granted

10

the Director’s Motion to Dismiss the Complaint on July 11, 2016, with leave to amend two of

11

Plaintiffs’ claims (ECF No. 39);

12
13
14
15
16

2.

Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint on August 1, 2016 (ECF No. 42), and the

Director moved to dismiss the First Amended Complaint August 31, 2016 (ECF No. 47);
3.

On September 1, 2016, the Court held an initial scheduling conference, and issued a

Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order on September 14, 2016 (ECF No. 51) (Scheduling Order);
4.

The hearing on the Director’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint

17

(Motion to Dismiss) was initially set for October 7, 2016, and was continued on the Court’s own

18

motion to November 4, 2016 (ECF No. 57), and then to November 18, 2016 by the Court

19

pursuant to the parties’ stipulation in light of a scheduling conflict for Plaintiffs’ counsel (ECF

20

No. 59);

21

5.

22
23

On November 15, 2016, the Court vacated the November 18, 2016 hearing on the

Director’s Motion to Dismiss and deemed the motion submitted without argument (ECF No. 61);
6.

In the Scheduling Order, the Court stayed the requirement to make initial disclosures

24

until December 7, 2016 “to allow for the court’s hearing defendant’s motion to dismiss and

25

issuing an order thereon.” (ECF No. 51, at 2);

26

7.

The Court has not issued an order on the Director’s Motion to Dismiss;

27

8.

The parties have made initial disclosures and served written discovery, but believe

28

that, consistent with intent of the Scheduling Order, it would serve the interests of economy and
1
Stipulation to Modify Scheduling Order (CV-02165-KJM-EFB)

1

efficiency to modify the Scheduling Order so that service of responses to written discovery, and

2

any deposition and expert discovery, need not proceed until after the Court’s anticipated ruling on

3

the Director’s Motion to Dismiss;

4

9.

Consistent with the above, the parties agree that if the case schedule is modified as

5

requested below, the deadlines for responses to pending written discovery may be extended until

6

90 days before the deadline for the close of discovery, and that they will not pursue further

7

discovery until after the Court’s ruling on the Director’s Motion to Dismiss or 120 days before

8

the close of discovery, whichever is earlier; and

9
10

10.

The parties also require additional time, despite exercising due diligence to pursue

discovery, to ensure that discovery may be completed as defined in the Scheduling Order;

11

WHEREFORE, the parties STIPULATE that:

12

1.

13
14
15
16

In light of the above, good cause exists to modify the case schedule to extend the time

for discovery and to adjust other case deadlines accordingly;
2.

The case schedule shall, upon the Court’s order, be modified to provide for the close

of discovery by August 31, 2017;
3.

The deadlines in the Scheduling Order shall be adjusted accordingly in relation to the

17

dates and time periods following the close of discovery set out in the current Scheduling Order, as

18

follows:

19

August 31, 2017: Close of discovery

20

September 15, 2017: Expert Disclosures Due

21

October 6, 2017: Supplemental Expert Disclosures Due

22

November 3, 2017: Close of Expert Discovery

23

December 22, 2017: Last Date for Hearing on Dispositive Motions

24

April 20, 2018: Parties Submit Joint Pretrial Conference Statement

25

May 11, 2018: Final Pretrial Conference

26

June 8, 2018: Trial Briefs Due

27

June 25, 2018: Trial

28
2
Stipulation to Modify Scheduling Order (CV-02165-KJM-EFB)

1
2

Respectfully submitted,
XAVIER BECERRA
Attorney General of California
SUSAN M. CARSON
Supervising Deputy Attorney General

Dated: February 17, 2017

3
4
5
6

/s/ Joshua Sondheimer
JOSHUA N. SONDHEIMER
Deputy Attorney General
Attorneys for Defendant Michelle Rouillard,
in her official capacity as Director of the
California Department of Managed Health
Care

7
8
9
10
11

Dated: February 17, 2017

ALLIANCE DEFENDING FREEDOM

12
13
/s/ Jeremiah Galus (as authorized on 2/17/17)
JEREMIAH GALUS (admitted pro hac vice)
ALLIANCE DEFENDING FREEDOM
15100 N. 90th Street
Scottsdale, AZ 85260
[phone]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Foothill Church,
Calvary Chapel Chino Hills, and Shepherd
of the Hills Church

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3

Stipulation to Modify Scheduling Order (CV-02165-KJM-EFB)

1
2
3

ORDER
Upon stipulation of the parties, and good cause appearing, the Court hereby modifies the
dates and deadlines set out in the Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order (ECF No. 51) as follows:

4

August 31, 2017: Close of discovery

5

September 15, 2017: Expert Disclosures Due

6

October 6, 2017: Supplemental Expert Disclosures Due

7

November 3, 2017: Close of Expert Discovery

8

January 12, 2018: Last Date for Hearing on Dispositive Motions

9

April 27, 2018: Parties Submit Joint Pretrial Conference Statement

10

May 18, 2018: Final Pretrial Conference

11

June 11, 2018: Trial Briefs Due

12

June 25, 2018: Trial at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom No. 3

13

All other provisions of the Pretrial Scheduling Order remain in effect.

14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED
Dated: March 1, 2017

16
17
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Order Modifying Scheduling Order (CV-02165-KJM-EFB)