Rhodehouse v. Ford Motor Company

Filing 25

STIPULATION and ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 09/29/17 ORDERING that all dates are EXTENDED by 60 days as follows: all dispositive motions shall be filed by 04/10/18 and heard 05/8/18 at 1:30 p.m. All discovery shall be completed by 02/20/18; Expert witness disclosures due by 12/18/17 with any supplemental disclosures due 01/08/18; Final Pretrial Conference set for 06/15/18 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 6 (JAM) before District Judge John A. Mendez and Jury Trial set for 07/23/18 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 6 (JAM) before District Judge John A. Mendez. (Benson, A.) Modified on 10/2/2017 (Benson, A.).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

MICHAEL COGAN (SBN: 65479)
Attorney at Law
Attorneys for Plaintiff
DEREK RHODEHOUSE
AMIR NASSIHI (SBN: 235936)
[e-mail]
SANDRA L. SHELDON (SBN: 271555)
[e-mail]
SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P.
One Montgomery, Suite 2700
San Francisco, California 94104-2828
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
Attorneys for Defendant
FORD MOTOR COMPANY

10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12

DEREK RHODEHOUSE,

13

Plaintiff,

14
15
16

Case No. 2:16-cv-01892-JAM-CMK
STIPULATION AND ORDER EXTENDING
PENDING DATES BY 60 DAYS

v.
FORD MOTOR COMPANY and DOES 1 TO
20, Inclusive,

Complaint Filed: January 4, 2015
1st Amended Complaint Filed: July 5, 2016
2nd Amended Complaint Filed: December 21,
2016

Defendants.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

1.

On August 10, 2016, Defendant Ford Motor Company removed this action from the

Superior Court of California for the County of Trinity to the United States District Court, Eastern
District of California.
2.

On December 5, 2016, the Court granted in part, and denied in part, Ford’s motion to

dismiss the action.
3.

On December 21, 2016, Plaintiff filed his second amended complaint.

4.

On January 4, 2017, the Court issued its Status (Pre-Trial Scheduling) Order, setting

various discovery deadlines and trial for May 21, 2018.

28
1
389832 v1

Stipulation Extending Pending Dates by 60 Days
Case No. 2:16-cv-01892-JAM-CMK

1

5.

The parties have engaged in discovery cooperatively. Plaintiff has responded to

2

special interrogatories and requests for production. Defendant has deposed Plaintiff, who was a

3

passenger in the vehicle, Mark Suda, the driver of the vehicle, Kyle Martin, a friend of plaintiff, and

4

Tiffany Cato, his relationship. Ford will depose the California Highway Patrol officer who

5

responded to the incident next week. Plaintiff has served requests for admission, special

6

interrogatories, and two sets of requests for production to which responses are being prepared. The

7

parties have also agreed to a medical examination of Plaintiff without the necessity of motion.

8

Plaintiff has also noticed the depositions of two named Ford witnesses. After these depositions,

9

Plaintiff and Ford will meet and confer whether a general Ford deponent will also be noticed.

10

6.

The main reason for the request for this amendment is based upon limitations related

11

by Plaintiff’s counsel. Gene Tucker, who had worked for Plaintiff’s attorney approximately 14 years,

12

unexpectedly died this past May. The last two months before his death were disruptive as he began

13

to have difficulty, but the terminal nature of his illness was not known. Plaintiff’s counsel relates that

14

Mr. Tucker’s unexpected death was troubling and difficult for both the professional and personal

15

void it created. Plaintiff’s counsel returned early out-of-town upon learning of Mr. Tucker’s death

16

and relates that he was required to step in and handle a number of personal issues regarding Mr.

17

Tucker. In addition, Plaintiff’s counsel says he had to address the legal matters for which Mr. Tucker

18

had been responsible. Another issue for Plaintiff’s counsel is Plaintiff’s research assistant of over 22

19

years has retired recently (although he might possibly come back). This was a development which

20

occurred after Mr. Tucker’s death. These events have contributed to significantly limiting the time

21

and ability of Plaintiff’s counsel to focus on this case. Counsel for Plaintiff has no other attorney or

22

research assistant working for him at the moment and is in the process of advertising for an attorney

23

to assist him with his practice.

24

7.

As such, the Parties hereby stipulate and respectfully request that this Court consider

25

the foregoing as good cause to amend the existing Pre-Trial Scheduling Order to continue all

26

pending dates by 60 days, to the following:

27
28
2
389832 v1

Stipulation Extending Pending Dates by 60 Days
Case No. 2:16-cv-01892-JAM-CMK

1

a.

2

The parties shall make expert witness disclosures under Fed R. Civ. P.
26(a)(2) by December 18, 2017;

3

b.

4

Supplemental disclosure and disclosure of any rebuttal experts under Fed R.
Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(c) shall be made by January 8, 2018;

5

c.

All discovery shall be completed by February 20, 2018;

6

d.

All dispositive motions shall be filed by April 10, 2018;

7

e.

Hearing on such dispositive motions shall be on May 8, 2018 at 1:30 p.m. or

8

as soon thereafter as this Court will permit;

9

f.

The final pre-trial conference be set for June 15, 2018 at 10:00 a.m.; and

10

g.

Jury trial in this matter be set for July 23, 2018 at 9:00 a.m., or as soon

11

thereafter as this Court will permit.

12
13

Dated: September 28, 2017

Respectfully submitted,

14

LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL COGAN

15

By: /s/ Michael Cogan (as authorized 9/28/17)
Michael Cogan

16
Attorney for Plaintiff
DEREK RHODEHOUSE

17
18
19

Dated: September 28, 2017

SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P.

20
By: /s/ Sandra L. Sheldon
Amir Nassihi
Sandra L. Sheldon

21
22

Attorneys for Defendant
FORD MOTOR COMPANY

23
24

Pursuant to Stipulation, it is so ordered as modified by the Court.
25
26

DATED: 9/29/2017

27

/s/ John A. Mendez_______________________
United States District Court Judge

28
3
389832 v1

Stipulation Extending Pending Dates by 60 Days
Case No. 2:16-cv-01892-JAM-CMK