Sutton v. Giessner, et al.
Filing
27
STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 8/7/2019 and agreed between the parties to MODIFY the discovery and scheduling deadlines as follows: (1) Plaintiff's deposition shall be complete on or before 9/9/2019; (2) any motions necessary to compel discovery shall be filed on or before 9/16/2019; (3) dispositive motions shall be filed on or before 12/9/2019; (4) the Court will schedule pretrial proceedings, if necessary, upon the resolution of any pretrial motions filed. (Yin, K)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
XAVIER BECERRA, State Bar No. 118517
Attorney General of California
PHILLIP L. ARTHUR, State Bar No. 238339
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
ERIK A. GUTIERREZ, State Bar No. 273837
Deputy Attorney General
1300 I Street, Suite 125
P.O. Box 944255
Sacramento, CA 94244-2550
Telephone: (916) 210-7340
Fax: (916) 324-5203
E-mail: Erik.Gutierrez@doj.ca.gov
Attorneys for Defendants G. Giessner
and N. Guzman
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
SACRAMENTO DIVISION
11
12
13
KARIMI SUTTON,
14
15
Plaintiff, STIPULATION TO MODIFY
SCHEDULING ORDER
v.
16
Judge:
G. GIESSNER, et al.,
17
2:16-cv-02369 KJM EFB
The Honorable Edmund F.
Brennan
Trial Date:
Not set
Defendants. Action Filed: September 23, 2016
18
19
20
Pursuant to Local Rule 143, the parties stipulate and ask the Court to Order that the
21
scheduling order entered on April 2, 2019 (ECF No. 20) be modified as follows: (1) Plaintiff’s
22
deposition shall be completed on or before September 9, 2019; (2) any motions necessary to
23
compel discovery shall be filed on or before September 16, 2019; (3) dispositive motions shall be
24
filed on or before December 9, 2019; and (4) the Court will schedule pretrial proceedings, if
25
necessary, upon the resolution of any pretrial motions filed.
26
“The district court is given broad discretion in supervising the pretrial phase of litigation.”
27
Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir. 1992) (citation and internal
28
quotation marks omitted). Rule 16(b) provides that “[a] schedule may be modified only for good
1
Stipulation to Modify Scheduling Order (2:16-cv-02369 KJM EFB)
1
cause and with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). “The schedule may be modified
2
‘if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.’” Zivkovic
3
v. Southern California Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Johnson, 975
4
F.2d at 607).
5
Good cause exists for this extension. Plaintiff’s deposition was initially scheduled for July
6
9, 2019. In June 2019, Defendants’ counsel became aware that the Law Offices of Marc
7
Grossman intended to substitute into this case as counsel for Plaintiff Karimi Sutton. The
8
substitution of attorney was completed and approved by the Court on July 10, 2019. (ECF No.
9
25.) Due to the appearance of Plaintiff’s counsel, Defendants voluntarily agreed to move
10
Plaintiff’s deposition to August 2, 2019. Defendants’ and Plaintiff’s counsel arranged to appear
11
for the August 2, 2019 deposition by video teleconference. Plaintiff would appear for the
12
deposition in-person at his correctional institution, Substance Abuse Treatment Facility and State
13
Prison, Corcoran (SATF-CSP, Corcoran).
14
On the morning of August 2, 2019, approximately twenty minutes before the video
15
teleconference deposition was set to begin, the parties were made aware that the Internet
16
connection at Plaintiff’s correctional institution, SATF-CSP, Corcoran was and had been down
17
since 11 p.m. on August 1, 2019. As Plaintiff’s counsel is located in Upland, California, and
18
Defendants’ counsel is located in Sacramento, California, there was no feasible way for either
19
counsel to appear in-person on short notice. Counsel waited for approximately forty-five minutes
20
after the scheduled start-time to see if the Internet connection would be fixed, but it was not.
21
Counsel jointly agreed to postpone the deposition, complete this stipulation, and move the Court
22
for an Order to modify the scheduling conference. Additionally, Plaintiff’s counsel is scheduled
23
for a pre-paid vacation from August 4, 2019 to the close of the discovery period, which prevents
24
the parties from completing Plaintiff’s deposition by the Court ordered deadline of August 9,
25
2019. Accordingly, the parties request an additional 30 days to complete Plaintiff’s deposition.
26
///
27
///
28
///
2
Stipulation to Modify Scheduling Order (2:16-cv-02369 KJM EFB)
1
Accordingly, the parties hereby agree and stipulate as follows:
2
1.
Plaintiff’s deposition shall be complete on or before September 9, 2019;
3
2.
Any motions necessary to compel discovery shall be filed on or before
4
September 16, 2019;
5
3.
Dispositive motions shall be filed on or before December 9, 2019; and
6
4.
The Court will schedule pretrial proceedings, if necessary, upon the resolution of any
7
pretrial motions filed.
8
Dated: August 5, 2019
Respectfully submitted,
9
XAVIER BECERRA
Attorney General of California
PHILLIP L. ARTHUR
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
10
11
12
/s/ Erik A. Gutierrez
ERIK A. GUTIERREZ
Deputy Attorney General
Attorneys for Defendants G. Giessner, and N.
Guzman
13
14
15
Dated: August 5, 2019
16
/s/ Marc Grossman
MARC GROSSMAN
LAW OFFICES OF MARC GROSSMAN
Attorneys for Plaintiff Karimi Sutton
17
18
19
IT IS SO ORDERED. The discovery and scheduling deadlines shall be modified as
20
follows: (1) Plaintiff’s deposition shall be complete on or before September 9, 2019; (2) any
21
motions necessary to compel discovery shall be filed on or before September 16, 2019;
22
(3) dispositive motions shall be filed on or before December 9, 2019; (4) the Court will schedule
23
pretrial proceedings, if necessary, upon the resolution of any pretrial motions filed.
24
Dated: August 7, 2019
25
26
________________________________________
Edmund F. Brennan
United States Magistrate Judge
27
28
SA2019100656/13978673.docx
3
Stipulation to Modify Scheduling Order (2:16-cv-02369 KJM EFB)
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?