Barker v. Osemwingie et al

Filing 61

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 4/4/2019 MODIFYING 53 Scheduling Order. The law and motion cut off date shall now be 5/22/2019. Any notices of motion and accompanying motion shall be filed on or before 4/24/2019, with the hearing noticed for no later than 5/22/2019. In all other respects, 53 Scheduling Order remains in full force and effect. (Henshaw, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

XAVIER BECERRA, State Bar No. 118517
Attorney General of California
PETER A. MESHOT, State Bar No. 117061
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
DIANA ESQUIVEL, State Bar No. 202954
Deputy Attorney General
1300 I Street, Suite 125
P.O. Box 944255
Sacramento, CA 94244-2550
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendants Osemwingie and Ramiscal

8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SACRAMENTO DIVISION

11
12
WILLIAM BARKER,

No. 2:16-cv-03008-JAM-CKD (PC)

13
14
v.
15
16
17

Plaintiff, STIPULATION AND PROPOSED
ORDER TO MODIFY SCHEDULING
ORDER TO EXTEND DISPOSITIVE
MOTION DEADLINE BY TWENTYONE DAYS

OSEMWINGIE, et al.,
Trial Date:
None
Defendants. Action Filed: April 12, 2017

18
19

Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) and Local Rule 143, the parties, through

20

their counsel of record, agree to and request a modification of the March 26, 2018 Scheduling

21

Oder (ECF No. 53) to extend the dispositive-motion deadline by twenty-one days. Good cause

22

exists to grant this stipulated request because the parties require more time to meet and confer

23

about the motion Defendants intend to file and to file the proposed motion.

24

A scheduling order may be modified only upon a showing of good cause and by leave of

25

Court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A), 16(b)(4); see, e.g., Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975

26

F.2d 604, 609 (describing the factors a court should consider in ruling on such a motion). In

27

considering whether a party moving for a schedule modification has good cause, the Court

28

primarily focuses on the diligence of the party seeking the modification. Johnson, 975 F.2d at
1
Stipulated Request to Modify Scheduling Order re Dispositive-Motion Deadlines and Proposed Order
(2:16-cv-3008 JAM-CKD)

1

609 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 advisory committee’s notes of 1983 amendment). “The district

2

court may modify the pretrial schedule ‘if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the

3

party seeking the amendment.’” Id. (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 advisory committee notes of 1983

4

amendment).

5

On March 26, 2018, the Court issued a Scheduling Order requiring, as relevant here, that

6

dispositive motions be filed no later than April 3, 2019, and be set for hearing no later than May

7

1, 2019. (ECF No. 53.) The parties request an extension of the dispositive-motion deadlines

8

because they require additional time to meet and confer about the intended motion to ascertain if

9

they can agree on a statement of undisputed facts and which issues and facts are truly disputed.

10

Defendants also require more time to file the motion once the parties’ information discussions are

11

completed.

12

The parties have timely completed fact and expert discovery. Although the attorney for

13

Defendants has started the statement of undisputed facts in support of Defendants’ intended

14

motion, she will not be able to complete it and provide it to Plaintiff’s attorney to review until the

15

first week of April 2019. Defense counsel has had several pressing deadlines that prevented her

16

from completing the draft statement for Plaintiff’s review sooner. These deadlines included but

17

are not limited to: objections to findings and recommendation filed in Herrera v. Redding (E.D.

18

Cal. No. 1:14-cv-0164 LJO-BAM), Joint Scheduling Report in J.A.J. v. Jimenez (E.D. Cal. No.

19

1:18-cv-1138 DAD-SKO), expert disclosures in Lopez v. McPeek (Tehama County Superior

20

Court No. 72161), and settlement conference statement and preparations in Chaudhry v. Smith

21

(E.D. Cal. No. 1:16-cv-1243 SAB). In addition, defense counsel has a settlement conference in

22

Chaudhry in Fresno on April 3, which is expected to last most of the day; she has an all-day

23

training on April 5 in San Francisco; and April 1 is a state holiday. These events will limit

24

defense counsel’s availability during the first week of April to discuss and complete the motion.

25

For these reasons, the parties will be unable to meet and confer about, and Defendants will be

26

unable to complete and file, the proposed summary-judgment motion by the current deadlines.

27

Allowing the parties to meet and confer before the motion is filed may narrow the issues and

28

factual disputes that the Court needs to decides, and thereby simplifying the motion.
2
Stipulated Request to Modify Scheduling Order re Dispositive-Motion Deadlines and Proposed Order
(2:16-cv-3008 JAM-CKD)

1

There are no other deadlines pending in this matter other than ones related to dispositive

2

motions. And the extension will not substantial delay the resolution of this matter. Good cause

3

therefore exists to the grant the requested fourteen-day extension.

4

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

5
6

Dated: April 2, 2019

7

Respectfully submitted,
XAVIER BECERRA
Attorney General of California
PETER A. MESHOT
Supervising Deputy Attorney General

8
9
10

/s/ Diana Esquivel

11

DIANA ESQUIVEL
Deputy Attorney General
Attorneys for Defendants Osemwingie and Ramiscal

12
13
14

Dated: April 2, 2019

Disabled Advocacy Group, APLC

15

/s/ Scottlynn J. Hubbard (as authorized 4/2/19)

16

SCOTTLYNN J. HUBBARD
Attorney for Plaintiff William Barker

17
18

SA2017304374
13599845.docx

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Stipulated Request to Modify Scheduling Order re Dispositive-Motion Deadlines and Proposed Order
(2:16-cv-3008 JAM-CKD)

1

[Proposed] ORDER

2

Good cause appearing, the parties’ stipulated request to modify the dispositive-motion

3

deadlines is GRANTED. The March 26, 2018 Scheduling Order (ECF No. 53) is modified as

4

follows:

5

The law and motion cut off date shall now be May 22, 2019. Any notices of motion and

6

accompanying motion shall be filed on or before April 24, 2019, with the hearing noticed for no

7

later than May 22, 2019.

8

In all other respects, the March 26, 2018 Scheduling Order remains in full force and effect.

9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

10

Dated: April 4, 2019

_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

11
12
13
14

13:bark3008.eot.stip

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
Stipulated Request to Modify Scheduling Order re Dispositive-Motion Deadlines and Proposed Order
(2:16-cv-3008 JAM-CKD)