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)
[e-mail]
SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT, HANSON & FEARY, LLP
2 North Lake Avenue, Suite 560
Pasadena, CA 91101
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Adam C. Smedstad (SBN 303591)
[e-mail]
Andrew J. Butcher (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
[e-mail]
SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT, HANSON & FEARY, P.C.
30 West Monroe Street, Suite 600
Chicago, IL 60603
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Angela S. Cash (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
[e-mail]
Adam J. Eakman (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
[e-mail]
SCOPELITIS GARVIN LIGHT HANSON & FEARY, P.C.
10 W. Market Street, Suite 1400
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
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)
[e-mail]
Maggie Realin (SBN 263639)
[e-mail]
750 B Street, Suite 1950
San Diego, CA 92101
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
THE RDM LEGAL GROUP
Russell Myrick (SBN 270803)
[e-mail]
MANCHESTER FINANCIAL BUILDING
7970 Ivanhoe Avenue, Suite 400
La Jolla, CA 92037
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

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