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
[e-mail]
KEVIN P. ALLEN, State Bar No. 252290
[e-mail]
ALLEN, GLAESSNER, HAZELWOOD & WERTH, LLP
180 Montgomery Street, Suite 1200
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]

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