Blight v. Manteca et al

Filing 83

STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 6/1/2017 ORDERING that the current Discovery cutoff is EXTENDED until 6/23/2017 and the Dispositive Motion filing deadline is CONTINUED to 6/30/2017. (Zignago, K.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

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]
Attorneys for Defendants
CITY OF MANTECA, ARMANDO GARCIA, IAN
OSBORN, PAUL CARMONA and CHRIS S. MRAZ

9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10
180 Montgomery Street, Suite 1200
San Francisco, California 94104

ALLEN, GLAESSNER, HAZELWOOD & WERTH, LLP

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11

SACRAMENTO COURTHOUSE

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

Case No.: 2:15-cv-02513-WBS-AC

JOANNE BLIGHT,

v.

STIPULATION RE: DISCOVERY AND
SUMMARY JUDGMENT DEADLINES;
[PROPOSED] ORDER

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,

21

Defendants.

22
23
24

TO THE CLERK OF THE COURT, ALL PARTIES, AND THEIR ATTORNEYS
OF RECORD:

25

Plaintiff JOANNE BLIGHT (“Plaintiff”) and Defendants CITY OF MANTECA,

26

ARMANDO GARCIA, IAN OSBORN, CHRIS MRAZ, and PAUL CARMONA (“Defendants”)

27

hereby respectfully request continuation of the discovery and summary judgment deadlines in this

28

Case. All other deadlines would remain the same.
1

176364.1

STIPULATION; PROPOSED ORDER
2:15-CV-02513-WBS-AC

1

The fact discovery deadline has been extended three times before (Dkt. Nos. 35, 55, and

2

59). The summary judgment deadline has been extended once (Dkt. No. 59). The current

3

discovery date is June 6, 2017, and the current dispositive motion filing deadline is June 20, 2017.
Good cause exists for this stipulation. On May 23, 2017, Judge Shubb issued the final

4

preparation for that eventuality, the parties had previously met-and-conferred and agreed to June

7

2 as a deposition date (before the June 6 discovery cutoff). Over the course of May 23 and 24,

8

Defendants spoke to the CI and formed the belief the CI would not appear at the deposition absent

9

a privacy screen.1 On May 24, Defendants filed an ex-parte application for an order shortening

10
180 Montgomery Street, Suite 1200
San Francisco, California 94104

ruling stating that the deposition of the confidential informant (“CI”) would proceed. In

6

ALLEN, GLAESSNER, HAZELWOOD & WERTH, LLP

5

time for a protective order seeking such a screen. Alternatively, they requested continuance of

11

certain deadlines to allow the motion to be filed and heard on regular time.
From Plaintiff’s perspective, Plaintiff has no other choice but to seek an extension of the

12
13

discovery cutoff in order to be able to conduct the CI deposition that Plaintiff has already secured

14

the right to conduct, in accordance with the Order issued by Judge Claire (Dkt. 55), which was

15

affirmed by Judge Shubb, on May 23, 2017 (Dkt. 77). At present, there is neither a deposition of

16

the CI on calendar, nor have Defendants produced to Plaintiff the CI’s information so that

17

Plaintiff can subpoena the CI (despite Defendants’ representation that they are unable to produce

18

the CI voluntarily without the addition of conditions and restrictions not contained in this Court’s

19

Order (Dkt. 55)); in view of the uncertain circumstances and pending motion for a protective

20

order, Plaintiff seeks an Order extending the cutoff date in a fashion that recognizes the present

21

circumstances that are out of Plaintiff’s control, which will secure and preserve her right to

22

conduct the CI deposition. Accordingly, Plaintiff requests that the cutoff date be extended to June

23

23, 2017, but that that deadline act not as a final deadline, but as a deadline by which to file a

24

further Notice of Motion and Motion to Compel, should that become necessary.

25

Since Defendants filed their ex-parte application, the parties have met-and-conferred. In

26

light of Defendants’ pending motion, the uncertainty of when the CI deposition will take place,

27
28

1

The parties respectfully disagree on this point.
2

176364.1

STIPULATION; PROPOSED ORDER
2:15-CV-02513-WBS-AC

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

9
10
180 Montgomery Street, Suite 1200
San Francisco, California 94104

ALLEN, GLAESSNER, HAZELWOOD & WERTH, LLP

8

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

the possibility of litigating a motion to compel the Orders (Dkts. 55 and 77) brought by Plaintiff
(see Dkt. 81 - Notice of Motion and Motion to Compel), and the possibility of motions to compel
the CI’s attendance, it appears there simply is insufficient time for these events to resolve and for
a deposition of the CI to occur before the current June 6 discovery cutoff.
The parties have met-and-conferred in good faith and essentially seek to fashion a remedy
to the dilemma outlined above that will preserve the status quo as far as scheduling is concerned,
so that a deposition of the CI can occur before a deadline to conduct fact discovery expires, while
also preserving the status quo as far as the dispositive motion filing deadline is concerned.
Based on the foregoing circumstances, by and through their respective counsel of record,
the parties hereby stipulate and respectfully request that the Scheduling Order in this action be
amended, as follows:
1.

That the current discovery cutoff of June 6, 2017 be extended until June 23, 2017.

This would act as the deadline to take the CI deposition, unless any of the following conditions
occurs: (a) the CI is not produced for a deposition for any reason by Defendants; (b) the CI fails
to appear after being properly served with a deposition subpoena by either party; (c) the
Defendants fail to provide to Plaintiff the CI’s information, so that the Plaintiff can serve a
deposition subpoena on the CI; (d) despite having been provided with the CI’s information in a
timely fashion and despite the exercise of due diligence to serve the CI, Plaintiff is unable to
subpoena the CI; or (e), if a further dispute between the parties regarding the CI deposition arises
that results in the deposition either not going forward or being stopped before its completion. If
any of the foregoing conditions, (a) – (e) occurs, June 23, 2017 would then instead act as the
deadline by which to file any Notice of Motion and Motion for Protective Order and/or Notice of
Motion and Motion to Compel regarding the CI deposition, but since a hearing on any such
Notice(s) would not occur until after June 23, 2017 on normal time, the filing of a Notice of
Motion and Motion for Protective Order and/or Notice of Motion and Motion to Compel would
act to “stop the clock” on the discovery cutoff for the CI deposition and the deadline to file
dispositive motions, thereby tolling the discovery cutoff solely concerning the deposition of the

28
3
176364.1

STIPULATION; PROPOSED ORDER
2:15-CV-02513-WBS-AC

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

9
10
180 Montgomery Street, Suite 1200
San Francisco, California 94104

ALLEN, GLAESSNER, HAZELWOOD & WERTH, LLP

8

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

CI (and related motions) and the deadline to file dispositive motions until such time as would be
prescribed in a final ruling regarding any such Motion for Protective Order and/or Motion to
Compel, which would need to include a reasonable period of time following such a ruling in
which to conduct the CI deposition and file dispositive motions. This extension is for the sole
purpose of completing the deposition of the confidential informant and related motions;; all other
discovery shall remain closed.
2.

That the dispositive motion filing deadline be continued from June 20, 2017 to

June 30, 2017;
3.

The parties’ ability to agree upon and reach this stipulation was made contingent

upon both the discovery and summary judgment deadlines being extended as specified. If only
one is extended and not the other, the parties withdraw this stipulation.
If this stipulation is not granted for any reason, including the fact that it is contingent upon
the extension of both deadlines, Plaintiff respectfully must reserve her right to file an ex-parte
application for relief from the June 6, 2017 deadline, requesting an extension of the fact discovery
deadline only. Defendants have expressed they would oppose such an ex-parte because
Defendants seek extension of both discovery and dispositive motion deadlines. Before filing such
an ex-parte application, the parties sought to file this stipulation first, in the interest of
cooperation and judicial economy.

19
20

Respectfully submitted,
Dated: May 31, 2017

LAW OFFICE OF SANJAY S. SCHMIDT

21
22

By:

23
24

/s/ Sanjay S. Schmidt
SANJAY S. SCHMIDT
Attorneys for Plaintiff
JOANNE BLIGHT

25
26
27
28
4
176364.1

STIPULATION; PROPOSED ORDER
2:15-CV-02513-WBS-AC

1
Dated: May 31, 2017
2

ALLEN, GLAESSNER,
HAZELWOOD & WERTH, LLP

3
By:

4
5
6
7

PURSUANT TO THE FOREGOING STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

9
10
180 Montgomery Street, Suite 1200
San Francisco, California 94104

ALLEN, GLAESSNER, HAZELWOOD & WERTH, LLP

8

/s/ Kevin P. Allen
DALE L. ALLEN, JR.
KEVIN P. ALLEN
Attorneys for Defendants
CITY OF MANTECA, ARMANDO
GARCIA, IAN OSBORN, PAUL CARMONA
and CHRIS S. MRAZ

DATED: June 1, 2017

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5

176364.1

STIPULATION; PROPOSED ORDER
2:15-CV-02513-WBS-AC