Blight v. Manteca et al
Filing
59
STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 2/21/17: Discovery due by 6/6/2017. Dispositive Motions filed by 6/20/2017. Pretrial Conference RESET for 8/28/2017 at 01:30 PM in Courtroom 5 (WBS) before Senior Judge William B. Shubb. Jury Trial RESET for 10/17/2017 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 5 (WBS) before Senior Judge William B. Shubb. (Kaminski, H)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Attorneys for Defendants
CITY OF MANTECA, ARMANDO GARCIA, RANCH
JOHNSON, KIRK DOTY, MIKE KEENER, IAN
OSBORN, ARMEN AVAKIAN, PAUL CARMONA and
CHRIS S. MRAZ
9
10
180 Montgomery Street, Suite 1200
San Francisco, California 94104
ALLEN, GLAESSNER, HAZELWOOD & WERTH, LLP
8
DALE L. ALLEN, JR., State Bar No. 145279
dallen@aghwlaw.com
KEVIN P. ALLEN, State Bar No. 252290
kallen@aghwlaw.com
ALLEN, GLAESSNER, HAZELWOOD & WERTH, LLP
180 Montgomery Street, Suite 1200
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone:
(415) 697-2000
Facsimile:
(415) 813-2045
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
11
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
12
SACRAMENTO COURTHOUSE
13
JOANNE BLIGHT,
Plaintiff,
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Case No.: 2:15-cv-02513-WBS-AC
STIPULATION RE: TRIAL AND RELATED
DEADLINES; [PROPOSED] ORDER
v.
CITY OF MANTECA, a Municipal
Corporation, Manteca Police Department
Detectives ARMANDO GARCIA,
Individually, RANCH JOHNSON,
Individually, KIRK DOTY, Individually,
MIKE KEENER, Individually, IAN
OSBORN, Individually, and ARMEN
AVAKIAN, Individually, Manteca Police
Department Sergeants PAUL CARMONA
and CHRIS S. MRAZ, in their Individual
and Supervisory capacities, and DOES 1
THROUGH 60, Jointly and Severally,
22
Defendants.
23
24
25
26
TO THE CLERK OF THE COURT, ALL PARTIES, AND THEIR ATTORNEYS
OF RECORD:
Plaintiff JOANNE BLIGHT (“Plaintiff”) and Defendants CITY OF MANTECA,
27
ARMANDO GARCIA, IAN OSBORN, CHRIS MRAZ, PAUL CARMONA, KIRK DOTY,
28
RANCH JOHNSON, MIKE KEENER, and ARMEN AVAKIAN (“Defendants”) hereby
1
157723.1
STIPULATION; PROPOSED ORDER
2:15-CV-02513-WBS-AC
1
respectfully request continuation of the trial date and certain pre-trial related deadlines in this
2
Case.1
3
On March 22, 2016, the Court set the following case-related deadlines: expert disclosure
2017); dispositive motion filing deadline (May 8, 2017); and trial (July 11, 2017). (Dkt. No. 8).
6
On September 13, 2016, after the parties had already engaged in extensive discovery, but had
7
been held up in concluding some matters due to various logistical delays due to the various
8
schedules involved, the disclosure deadlines were extended: expert disclosure (November 8,
9
2016) and rebuttal disclosure (November 29, 2016). (Dkt. No. 12). On November 9, 2016, the
10
180 Montgomery Street, Suite 1200
San Francisco, California 94104
(September 13, 2016); rebuttal disclosure (October 4, 2016); discovery deadline (January 10,
5
ALLEN, GLAESSNER, HAZELWOOD & WERTH, LLP
4
disclosure deadlines were extended a second time: expert disclosure (November 22, 2016) and
11
rebuttal disclosure (December 13, 2016). (Dkt. No. 28). On December 12, 2016, as a result of the
12
complex issues involved and the ongoing litigation involving discovery, the discovery deadline
13
was extended (January 10, 2017). (Dkt No. 35). On February 8, 2017, the discovery deadline was
14
extended a second time (February 22, 2017). (Dkt. No. 53).
15
The parties have diligently litigated this Case. They have completed multiple rounds of
16
written discovery, taken thirteen depositions (including all of the parties), and disclosed experts.
17
Further, in light of the evidence adduced in discovery, the parties are meeting-and-conferring in
18
good-faith to streamline the case (by, among other things, dismissing certain defendants), in order
19
to minimize dispositive motion practice later on.
20
This Case involves a search warrant where Manteca police utilized a confidential
21
informant. That informant has become a significant issue. On November 2, 2016, pursuant to
22
Plaintiff’s motion to compel, the Magistrate Court ordered disclosure of the sealed state-court
23
warrant affidavit and permitted re-deposition of certain Manteca officers regarding the affidavit
24
and what the informant told them. (Dkt. Nos. 26 and 32). Those second depositions occurred on
25
26
27
28
1
The parties understand the magistrate is empowered to change all case-related deadlines, save
for the trial date (Dkt. 8, 5:11-16). Because the parties are requesting continuation of various
deadlines (including the trial date), they sought judicial economy by filing one stipulation. If the
Court would like two requests (trial date to the Court; all other dates to the Magistrate Court) the
parties will do so.”
2
157723.1
STIPULATION; PROPOSED ORDER
2:15-CV-02513-WBS-AC
December 20, 2016. On February 10, 2017, pursuant to Plaintiff’s second motion to compel, the
2
Magistrate Court ordered the deposition of the confidential informant. (Dkt. No. 55). Unless the
3
informant will voluntarily appear, Defendants have been ordered to disclose the informant’s name
4
and address (for service of a subpoena). (Id.) The deposition of the informant has been an issue
5
that the parties have been aware of and discussing since even prior to the first motion to compel
6
hearing, on November 2, 2016; however, it was not possible to litigate that issue until February
7
10, 2017. In light of the outcome of that litigation, the parties now require sufficient time to
8
complete that deposition, and require sufficient time to obtain any relief from the Court regarding
9
any disagreements that may arise concerning that deposition, should the need arise. Accordingly,
10
180 Montgomery Street, Suite 1200
San Francisco, California 94104
ALLEN, GLAESSNER, HAZELWOOD & WERTH, LLP
1
the parties stipulate below to an extension of the discovery cutoff for the sole purpose of
11
completing the deposition of the informant, while all other discovery remains closed.
Despite the parties’ diligence, good-faith and best efforts, the difficulty with scheduling
12
13
issues (including the various depositions and discovery hearings) and, in general, the challenges
14
above have made it now impossible to keep the case on it track for the current schedule. With
15
summary judgment motions due March 7, 2017, the parties do not believe there is sufficient time
16
to complete the informant’s deposition and prepare dispositive motions. Defendants’ counsel has
17
also been in trial off-and-on since last Monday, February 6th; trial is expected to run through
18
Thursday, February 23rd. Additionally, the undersigned Plaintiff’s counsel will be out of town for
19
two weeks at the end of March and then will be in a 15-day+ trial that starts in the middle of
20
April, so identifying mutually agreeable dates for dispositive motions, while keeping the same
21
Pre-Trial Conference date, is not possible.
22
The parties have met-and-conferred extensively -- attempting to find an alternative filing
23
deadline while still keeping the current Pre-Trial Conference and Trial dates -- but were unable to
24
do so. There are unsolvable scheduling conflicts.
25
Based on the foregoing circumstances, by and through their respective counsel of record,
26
the parties hereby stipulate, and respectfully request that the Scheduling Order in this action be
27
amended, as follows:
28
1.
That the current discovery cutoff of February 22, 2017 (extended by two weeks from
3
157723.1
STIPULATION; PROPOSED ORDER
2:15-CV-02513-WBS-AC
1
February 8, See Dkt. 53) be extended for the sole purpose of completing the deposition of the
2
confidential informant, as set forth in the Order dated February 9, 2017 (filed February 10, 2017)
3
(Dkt. 55), until June 6, 2017, which includes obtaining any enforcement orders, and which means
4
that all such discovery shall be completed by June 6, 2017; all other discovery shall remain
5
closed after discovery closes on February 22, 2017;
6
2.
7
2017;
That the dispositive motion filing deadline be continued from March 7, 2017 to June 20,
3.
9
at 1:30 p.m.; and,
10
180 Montgomery Street, Suite 1200
San Francisco, California 94104
ALLEN, GLAESSNER, HAZELWOOD & WERTH, LLP
8
That the pretrial conference be continued from May 8, 2017 to August 28, 2017
4.
11
9:00 a.m.
That the jury trial date be continued from July 11, 2017 to October 17, 2017 at
12
13
14
Respectfully submitted,
Dated: February 21, 2017
LAW OFFICES OF SANJAY S. SCHMIDT
15
By:
16
17
18
Dated: February 21, 2017
19
20
/s/ Sanjay S. Schmidt
SANJAY S. SCHMIDT
Attorneys for Plaintiff
JOANNE BLIGHT
ALLEN, GLAESSNER,
HAZELWOOD & WERTH, LLP
By:
21
22
23
24
/s/ Kevin P. Allen
DALE L. ALLEN, JR.
KEVIN P. ALLEN
Attorneys for Defendants
CITY OF MANTECA, ARMANDO
GARCIA, RANCH JOHNSON, KIRK DOTY,
MIKE KEENER, IAN OSBORN, ARMEN
AVAKIAN, PAUL CARMONA and CHRIS
S. MRAZ
25
PURSUANT TO THE FOREGOING STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.
26
Dated: February 21, 2017
27
28
4
157723.1
STIPULATION; PROPOSED ORDER
2:15-CV-02513-WBS-AC
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?