Barker et al v. Swift Transportation Company of Arizona, LLC

Filing 22

ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 5/30/2017 ORDERING Discovery set for 6/1/2017 is VACATED and CONTINUED to 7/31/2017. (Reader, L)

`

1 THE MARKHAM LAW FIRM
David R. Markham (SBN 071814)

2 [e-mail]
Maggie Realin (SBN 263639)

3 [e-mail]
750 B Street, Suite 1950

4 San Diego, California 92101
Tel.: [phone]; Fax: [phone]

5
THE RDM LEGAL GROUP

6 Russel Myrick (SBN 270803)
[e-mail]

7 MANCHESTER FINANCIAL BUILDING
7979 Ivanhoe Avenue, Suite 400


8 La Jolla, California 92037

Tel.: [phone]
 Fax: [phone]

9
Attorneys for Plaintiff and all others similarly situated

10
SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT, HANSON & FEARY, LLP


11 Christopher C. McNatt, Jr. (SBN 174559)
[e-mail]

12 2 North Lake Avenue, Suite 460
Pasadena, California 91101

13 Tel.: [phone]; Fax: [phone]
14 Andrew J. Butcher (pro hac vice)
[e-mail]

15 30 West Monroe Street, Suite 600
Chicago, IL 60603


16 Tel.: [phone]; Fax: [phone]
17 Attorneys for Defendants
18

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

19

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

20

BILL BARKER, TAB BACHMAN, AND

21 WILLIAM YINGLING, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated,

22
23

Plaintiffs,
v.

24

SWIFT TRANSPORTATION COMPANY OF
25 ARIZONA, LLC, and DOES 1 - 10, Inclusive,

26
27
28

Defendants.

Case No.: 2:16–CV–01532–TLN–CKD
Hon. Troy L. Nunley
STIPULATION AND ORDER THEREON TO
AMEND SCHEDULING ORDER
Complaint Filed:
Removed:
Discovery Cutoff:
Expert Witness Disclosure:
Class Certification:

1 April 2016
5 July 2016
1 June 2016
27 July 2017
21 September 2017

1
Barker v. Swift Transportation Company, Case No. 2:16-cv-01532-TLN-CKD
Joint Stipulation and Order to Amend Scheduling Order

`

1

Plaintiffs Bill Barker, Tab Bachman, and William Yingling (“Plaintiffs”) and Defendant Swift

2 Transportation Company Of Arizona, LLC, (“Swift”), by and through their respective attorneys of
3 record, and pursuant to USDC EDCA Local Rules 143 and 144(d) and FRCP 16(b), hereby stipulate and
4 agree as follows:
5

WHEREAS, on or about 6 September 2016, this Court, pursuant to the Federal Rule of Civil

6 Procedure (“FRCP”) 16(b) and the FRCP 26(f) Conference Statement of the parties, issued a Scheduling
7 Order setting the discovery cut–off for 1 June 2017;
8

WHEREAS, this is a complex case involving multiple claims, many potential fact witnesses and

9 experts, and which requires each side to spend significant time identifying and analyzing a voluminous
10 amount of driver logs, wage statements, and other electronic materials;
11

WHEREAS, since the issuance of the Pretrial Scheduling Order, the parties have worked

12 diligently towards completing discovery;
13

WHEREAS, the parties stipulate and agree they are unable to complete discovery by the 1 June

14 2017 cut–off date;
15

WHEREAS, the parties have acted with diligence in trying to adhere to the current pretrial

16 deadlines but are making this request to the Court for modification of the current scheduling order
17 because absent an extension, the parties will be unable to complete discovery;
18

WHEREAS, neither party will be prejudiced by a two–month continuance of the current

19 discovery cutoff date; and
20

NOW THEREFORE, the parties, through their respective counsel, jointly propose and stipulate

21 to the following:
22

The deadlines in the Pretrial Scheduling Order previously set forth by the Court shall be revised

23 as follows, or set on such other dates as the Court determines:
24
25
26

Event
Fact Discovery Cut–Off Date

Current Date

Proposed New Date

1 June 2017

31 July 2017

27
28

2
Barker v. Swift Transportation Company, Case No. 2:16-cv-01532-TLN-CKD
Joint Stipulation and Order to Amend Scheduling Order

`

1

IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED and AGREED between the parties that all other provisions of

2 the PreTrial Scheduling Order of 6 September 2016 shall remain in effect. This Stipulation may be
3 signed in counterparts and any facsimile or electronic signature shall be valid as an original signature.
4

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

5
6 Dated: 23 May 2017
7

THE MARKHAM LAW FIRM
By:

/s/ David Markham
DAVID MARKHAM
MAGGIE REALIN
Attorneys for Plaintiff

8
9
10
11 Dated: 23 May 2017
12
13
14
15

SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT, HANSON & FEARY, LLP
By:

/s/ Andrew J. Butcher (as authorized on September 6, 2016)
Andrew J. Butcher (as authorized on September 6, 2016)
E-mail: [e-mail]
Christopher C. McNatt, Jr.
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendant

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

3
Barker v. Swift Transportation Company, Case No. 2:16-cv-01532-TLN-CKD
Joint Stipulation and Order to Amend Scheduling Order

`

1

ORDER

2

FOR GOOD CAUSE SHOWN, and pursuant to the Stipulation of the parties, the deadline in the

3 Scheduling Order previously set forth by the Court are revised as follows:
4
5
6

Event
Fact Discovery Cut–Off Date

Current Date

Extended Date Per Amended
Scheduling Order

1 June 2017

31 July 2017

7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED

9
10 Dated: May 30, 2017
11
12
Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge

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

4
Barker v. Swift Transportation Company, Case No. 2:16-cv-01532-TLN-CKD
Joint Stipulation and Order to Amend Scheduling Order