Pisano v. Restaurant Technologies, Inc.

Filing 9

STIPULATION and ORDER signed by District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr., on 6/26/17, ORDERING that all discovery, with the exception of expert discovery, shall be completed no later than 9/11/2017. Except as stated herein, the Initial Pretrial Scheduling Order issued on 4/25/2016, and Order to Modify Initial Pretrial Scheduling Order issued on 2/27/2017, will continue to govern this case. (Kastilahn, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

GARY R. BASHAM (SBN 130119)
NATHAN T. JACKSON (SBN 285620)
BASHAM LAW GROUP
8801 Folsom Blvd., Suite 177
Sacramento California 95826
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiff
JAMES PISANO
JAMES T. JONES (SBN 167967)
NICHOLAS D. POPER (SBN 293900)
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1600
Sacramento, California 95814
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendant
RESTAURANT TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

15

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

16

JAMES PISANO, an individual,

17
18
19

CASE NO. 2:16-cv-00859-MCE-CKD

Plaintiff,

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO
CONTINUE DISCOVERY DEADLINE

v.

20

RESTAURANT TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
a Delaware Corporation ; and DOES 1−50
inclusive,

21

Defendants.

22
23

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by Plaintiff JAMES PISANO

24

(“Plaintiff”)

and

Defendant

RESTAURANT

25

(collectively the “Parties”), by and through their respective counsel of record, that the deadline to

26

complete all discovery, with the exception of expert discovery, be continued from July 28, 2017

27

to September 11, 2017. All other pretrial deadlines will be governed by the Initial Pretrial

28

Scheduling Order issued on April 25, 2016, and the Order to Modify Initial Pretrial Scheduling
1
Stipulation and Order to Continue Discovery
Deadline

TECHNOLOGIES,

INC.

(“Defendant”)

James Pisano v. Restaurant Technologies, Inc.
Case No. 2:16-CV-00859-MCE-CKD

1

Order issued on February 27, 2017. Pursuant to Local Rule 144, the Parties confirm that one

2

extension to the discovery cut-off deadline has been previously obtained for a period of 147 days.

3

The proposed continuance of the discovery cut-off deadline is proper under Federal Rule

4

of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4), which allows the Court to modify a scheduling order upon a showing

5

of good cause. Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 16(b)(4); Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc. (9th Cir. 1992)

6

975 F.2d 604, 607-608. Good cause exists for the continuance of the discovery cut-off deadline.

7

Plaintiff filed a complaint in state court on March 3, 2016, alleging fourteen causes of

8

action for wage and hour violations, wrongful termination, disability discrimination, and

9

retaliation. Defendant removed the action to this Court on April 25, 2016. On or about June 24,

10

2016, the Parties met and conferred pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). Since

11

then, the Parties have served their initial disclosures, as well as engaged in written discovery and

12

numerous informal meet and confer discussions in a continued effort to address and resolve any

13

outstanding discovery issues and disputes without court intervention. On February 27, 2017, the

14

Parties sought and obtained an Order to Modify Initial Pretrial Scheduling Order due to the need

15

for additional time to complete written discovery and depositions.

16

After the Court’s February 27, 2017 Order was issued, the Parties began discussing the

17

possibility of mediating this case and agreed to defer depositions until mediation was completed.

18

The Parties attended mediation in good faith on May 31, 2017. Although no resolution was

19

reached at the recent mediation, the Parties believe that progress was made, and they wish to

20

continue negotiations to reach a resolution. The Parties have since agreed to continue their efforts

21

to reach a resolution. Due to the discovery still outstanding, including nine depositions for

22

Defendant’s current and former employees (seven deponents are out of state, three deponents are

23

former employees) as well as Plaintiff’s deposition, the Parties believe it would be beneficial to

24

postpone discovery and continue settlement discussions before incurring the significant costs

25

associated with the depositions, which will be quite costly in this case. Additionally, due to

26

scheduling conflicts and the time needed to complete numerous out of state depositions, the

27

Parties do not anticipate completing discovery prior to the discovery cut-off deadline.

28

///
2
Stipulation and Order to Continue Discovery
Deadline

James Pisano v. Restaurant Technologies, Inc.
Case No. 2:16-CV-00859-MCE-CKD

1
2

No party will be prejudiced by a continuance of the discovery cut-off deadline. Moreover,
no other pre-trial deadlines will be affected by a continuance of the discovery cut-off deadline.

3

Accordingly, the Parties believe the reasons set forth above establish good cause for the

4

Court to grant this request. Specifically, the Parties stipulate and request that the Court issue an

5

Order to continue the discovery cut-off deadline as follows:

6

A.

7
8
9
10
11

All discovery, with the exception of expert discovery, shall be completed no later
than September 11, 2017.

B.

Except as stated herein, the Initial Pretrial Scheduling Order issued on April 25,
2016, and Order to Modify Initial Pretrial Scheduling Order issued on February
27, 2017, will continue to govern this case.

Dated: June 22, 2017

BASHAM LAW GROUP

12
By: /s/ Gary R. Basham [as authorized on 06.22.17]
GARY R. BASHAM
NATHAN T. JACKSON
Attorneys for Plaintiff
JAMES PISANO

13
14
15
16

Dated: June 22, 2017

17

JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
By: /s/ Nicholas D. Poper
JAMES T. JONES
NICHOLAS D. POPER
Attorneys for Defendant
RESTAURANT TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3
Stipulation and Order to Continue Discovery
Deadline

James Pisano v. Restaurant Technologies, Inc.
Case No. 2:16-CV-00859-MCE-CKD

1
2
3
4

ORDER
Pursuant to the above Stipulation of the Parties, and good cause appearing, the discovery
cut-off deadline is continued as follows:
A.

5
6

All discovery, with the exception of expert discovery, shall be completed no later
than September 11, 2017.

B.

Except as stated herein, the Initial Pretrial Scheduling Order issued on April 25,

7

2016, and Order to Modify Initial Pretrial Scheduling Order issued on

8

February 27, 2017, will continue to govern this case.

9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 26, 2017

11
12

Date: June 26, 2017

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
Stipulation and Order to Continue Discovery
Deadline

James Pisano v. Restaurant Technologies, Inc.
Case No. 2:16-CV-00859-MCE-CKD