Barker et al v. Swift Transportation Company of Arizona, LLC
Filing
31
STIPULATION AND ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 9/13/2017 CONTINUING discovery cut-off for the limited purpose of resolving the ongoing discovery dispute to 9/21/2017. (Michel, G.)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
United States District Court
Eastern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Christopher C. McNatt, Jr. (SBN 174559)
cmcnatt@scopelitis.com
SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT, HANSON & FEARY, LLP
2 North Lake Avenue, Suite 560
Pasadena, CA 91101
Tel: (626) 795-4700
Fax: (626) 795-4790
Adam C. Smedstad (SBN 303591)
asmedstad@scopelitis.com
Andrew J. Butcher (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
abutcher@scopelitis.com
SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT, HANSON & FEARY, P.C.
30 West Monroe Street, Suite 600
Chicago, IL 60603
Tel: (312) 255-7200
Fax: (312) 422-1224
Angela S. Cash (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
acash@scopelitis.com
Adam J. Eakman (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
aeakman@scopelitis.com
SCOPELITIS GARVIN LIGHT HANSON & FEARY, P.C.
10 W. Market Street, Suite 1400
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Tel: (317) 637-1777
Fax: (317) 687-2414
Attorneys for Defendant,
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION COMPANY OF ARIZONA, LLC
ADDITIONAL COUNSEL LISTED ON NEXT PAGE
18
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
19
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
20
21
BILL BARKER, TAB BACHMAN, and
WILLIAM YINGLING, individually and
on behalf of others similarly situated,
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Plaintiffs,
v.
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION
COMPANY OF ARIZONA, LLC, and
DOES 1 – 10, Inclusive,
Defendants.
Case No. 2:16-cv-01532-TLN-CKD
STIPULATION AND ORDER
THEREON TO AMEND
SCHEDULING ORDER
Action Filed: April 1, 2016
Removed: July 5, 2016
Discovery Cutoff: July 31, 2017
Expert Witness Disclosures: July 27,
2017
Class Certification: September 21,
2017
1
Case No. 2:16-cv-01532-TLN-CKD
Stipulation and Order Thereon to Amend Scheduling Order
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
THE MARKHAM LAW FIRM
David R. Markham (SBN 071814)
dmarkham@markham-law.com
Maggie Realin (SBN 263639)
mrealin@markham-law.com
750 B Street, Suite 1950
San Diego, CA 92101
Tel: (619) 399-3995
Fax: (619) 615-2067
THE RDM LEGAL GROUP
Russell Myrick (SBN 270803)
russel@rdmlg.com
MANCHESTER FINANCIAL BUILDING
7970 Ivanhoe Avenue, Suite 400
La Jolla, CA 92037
Tel: (888) 482-8266
Fax: (858) 244-7930
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Case No. 2:16-cv-01532-TLN-CKD
Stipulation and Order Thereon to Amend Scheduling Order
1
Plaintiffs, Bill Barker, Tab Bachman and William Yingling (“Plaintiffs”) and
2
Defendant, Swift Transportation Company of Arizona, LLC (“Swift”), by and
3
through their respective counsel, and pursuant to USDC EDCA Local Rules 143 and
4
144(d) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b), hereby stipulate and agree as follows:
5
WHEREAS, on or about September 6, 2016, this Court, pursuant to
6
Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b) and the Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(f) Conference Statement of the parties,
7
issued a Pretrial Scheduling Order setting the expert disclosure deadline for any
8
expert to be used on class certification for July 27, 2017 (ECF No. 15). On May 31,
9
2017, the Court entered an Order setting the discovery cut-off for July 31, 2017
10
pursuant to the parties’ stipulation to extend the discovery cut-off for sixty (60) days
11
(ECF No. 22).
12
WHEREAS, due to scheduling difficulties, the parties were unable to schedule
13
the deposition of Swift pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(B)(6) until August 25, 2017 and
14
agreed to stipulate to extend the discovery cut-off until September 11, 2017 for
15
certain limited purposes as specified in the Stipulation and Order Thereon to Amend
16
Scheduling Order (ECF No. 28) filed July 31, 2017 and granted on August 8, 2017
17
(ECF No. 29).
18
WHEREAS, the parties have been engaged in
meet
and
confer
19
communications regarding Plaintiffs’ Responses to Request for Production, Set 1,
20
and Plaintiffs’ Responses to Interrogatories, Set 1 (the “Plaintiffs’ Challenged
21
Discovery Responses”). Plaintiffs have been in the process of reviewing their prior
22
responses to this discovery taking into consideration the concerns raised by
23
Defendant in the meet and confer process but need an additional ten (10) days to
24
provide updated responses to Plaintiffs’ Challenged Discovery Responses making
25
these responses due by September 21, 2017.
26
WHEREAS, as a result of the outstanding discovery issues identified above,
27
the parties stipulate and agree to an extension of the discovery cut-off until
28
3
Case No. 2:16-cv-01532-TLN-CKD
Stipulation and Order Thereon to Amend Scheduling Order
1
September 21, 2017 limited purpose of resolving the ongoing discovery dispute
2
regarding Plaintiffs’ Challenged Discovery Responses.
3
WHEREAS, the parties have acted with diligence in trying to adhere to the
4
current pretrial deadlines but are making this request to the Court for modification of
5
the current scheduling order because absent an extension, the parties will be unable to
6
complete the discovery and, if necessary, to allow Defendant to pursue a discovery
7
motion.
8
WHEREAS, neither party will be prejudiced by the requested brief extension.
9
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties, by their respective counsel, jointly propose
10
11
12
and stipulate to the following:
The deadlines in the Pretrial Scheduling Order previously set forth by the
Court shall be revised as follows, or set on such other date as the Court determines:
13
14
Event
Current Date
15
Discovery Cut-Off for the
16
limited purpose of resolving
17
the ongoing discovery
18
dispute regarding Plaintiffs’
19
Challenged Discovery
20
Responses and Defendant’s
21
Third Supplemental
22
Response to Plaintiffs’
23
Request for Production of
24
Proposed Date
Documents, Set One
September 11, 2017
September 21, 2017
25
26
27
28
4
Case No. 2:16-cv-01532-TLN-CKD
Stipulation and Order Thereon to Amend Scheduling Order
1
IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED and AGREED between the parties that all
2
other provisions of the Pretrial Scheduling Order of September 6, 2016 shall remain
3
in effect. This Stipulation may be signed in counterparts and any facsimile or
4
electronic signature will be valid as an original signature.
5
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
6
7
Dated: September 11, 2017
8
9
SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT, HANSON
& FEARY, P.C.
By:
10
Attorneys for Defendant,
11
12
13
/s/ Angela S. Cash
Angela S. Cash
Dated: September 11, 2017
THE RDM LEGAL GROUP
14
15
16
By:
/s/ Russel D. Myrick______
Russel Myrick
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
Case No. 2:16-cv-01532-TLN-CKD
Stipulation and Order Thereon to Amend Scheduling Order
ORDER
1
2
FOR GOOD CAUSE SHOWN, and pursuant to the Stipulation of the parties;
3
the deadlines in the Scheduling Order previously set forth by the Court are revised as
4
follows:
5
6
Event
7
Discovery Cut-Off for the
8
Proposed Date
limited purpose of resolving the
9
Current Date
ongoing discovery dispute
10
regarding Plaintiffs’ Challenged
11
Discovery Responses, and
12
Defendant’s Third Supplemental
13
Response to Plaintiffs’ Request
14
for Production of Documents,
15
September 11, 2017 September 21, 2017
Set One
16
17
IT IS SO ORDERED
18
19
Dated: September 13, 2017
20
21
22
Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge
23
24
25
26
27
28
6
Case No. 2:16-cv-01532-TLN-CKD
Stipulation and Order Thereon to Amend Scheduling Order
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?