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)

Download PDF
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?