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.)

Download PDF
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?