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

Filing 44

STIPULATION and ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 12/01/17 ORDERING that Discovery cut-off for the limited purpose of resolving the ongoing discovery dispute regarding Plaintiffs' challenged discovery responses is EXTENDED to 12/1/2017. (Benson, A.)

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
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
BILL BARKER, TAB BACHMAN, and
WILLIAM YINGLING, individually and
on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION
COMPANY OF ARIZONA, LLC, and
DOES 1 – 10, Inclusive,

Case No. 2:16-cv-01532-TLN-CKD
JOINT STIPULATION TO
EXTEND CASE DEADLINES;
ORDER
Action Filed: April 1, 2016
Removed: July 5, 2016

Defendants.
1
Case No. 2:16-cv-01532-TLN-CKD

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]

2
Case No. 2:16-cv-01532-TLN-CKD

Plaintiffs, Bill Barker, Tab Bachman, and William Yingling (“Plaintiffs”) and
Defendant, Swift Transportation Company of Arizona, LLC (“Swift”) pursuant to
USDC EDCA Local Rule 143 stipulate and agree as follows:
On September 6, 2016, this Court, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
16(b) and the Rule 26(f) Conference Statement of the parties, issued a Pretrial
Scheduling Order setting various deadlines for the case. On May 31, 2017, the Court
entered an Order setting the discovery cut-off for July 31, 2017 pursuant to the parties’
stipulation to extend the discovery cut-off for sixty days (ECF No. 22). On September
14, 2017, the Court entered an order extending the discovery cut-off for the limited
purpose of resolving the ongoing discovery dispute regarding Plaintiffs’ challenged
discovery responses and Defendant’s Third Supplemental Response to Plaintiffs’
Request for Production of Documents, Set One to September 21, 2017 (ECF No. 31).
Based on the parties’ stipulation to extend the deadline because Plaintiffs had not
produced the additional documents requested, the Court extended the same deadline to
October 27, 2017 (ECF No. 35) and, following an unsuccessful mediation on October
20, 2017, to November 10, 2017 (ECF No. 37).
Plaintiffs produced the requested discovery on November 10, 2017 leaving
insufficient time for Defendant to review the discovery response and file any
necessary motions. The parties, therefore, respectfully request a three-week extension
on the discovery cut-off deadline for the limited purpose of resolving the ongoing
discovery dispute regarding Plaintiffs’ challenged discovery responses and, if
necessary, for Defendants to file a discovery motion. Neither party will be prejudiced
by this extension.
The parties jointly propose that the deadline in the Pretrial Scheduling Order
previously set forth by the Court be revised as follows, or set on such other date as the
Court determines:

3
Case No. 2:16-cv-01532-TLN-CKD

Event

Current Date

Discovery cut-off for the

November 10, 2017

Proposed Date
December 1, 2017

limited purpose of resolving
the ongoing discovery
dispute regarding Plaintiffs’
challenged discovery
responses

IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED and AGREED between the parties that all other
provisions of the Pretrial Scheduling Order of September 6, 2016 and subsequent
orders will remain in effect. This Stipulation may be signed in counterparts and any
facsimile or electronic signature will be valid as an original signature.
IT IS SO STIPULATED.

Dated: November 10, 2017

SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT, HANSON
& FEARY, P.C.
By:

Dated: November 10, 2017

Angela S. Cash
Attorneys for Defendant,
THE RDM LEGAL GROUP

By:

//s//
Russel Myrick
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

4
Case No. 2:16-cv-01532-TLN-CKD

ORDER
FOR GOOD CAUSE SHOWN, and pursuant to the Stipulation of the parties,
the deadlines in the Scheduling Order previously set forth by the Court are revised as
follows:

Event

Current Date

Discovery cut-off for the limited

Proposed Date

November 10, 2017 December 1, 2017

purpose of resolving the ongoing
discovery dispute regarding
Plaintiffs’ challenged discovery
responses

IT IS SO ORDERED

Dated: December 1, 2017

Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge

5
Case No. 2:16-cv-01532-TLN-CKD