Beltran v. Baker et al

Filing 42

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 7/1/2021 EXTENDING the deadline to complete non-expert depositions to 7/30/2021; EXTENDING the deadline to file a motion to compel non-expert depositions, if necessary, to 8/14/2021; EXTENDING the d eadline to file pretrial motions to 10/22/2021; ORDERING in all other respects the discovery and scheduling order should remain unchanged; and ORDERING Plaintiff's deposition to be rescheduled and completed at a later time consistent with the Court's anticipated modification of the discovery and scheduling order consistent with this stipulation.(Henshaw, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

ROB BONTA, State Bar No. 202668
Attorney General of California
JOANNA B. HOOD, State Bar No. 264078
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: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendants E. Baker, B. Cross,
D. Tran, M. Swett, G. Smith, and T. Guerra
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SACRAMENTO DIVISION

11
12
13

JAIME BELTRAN,

14
15
16
17
18

v.
BAKER, et al. ,

2:17-cv-1520 TLN AC P
Plaintiff, SECOND STIPULATION TO MODIFY
THE DISCOVERY AND SCHEDULING
ORDER; [PROPOSED] ORDER

Judge:
The Honorable Allison Claire
Not set
Defendants. Trial Date:
Action Filed: July 21, 2017

19
20

The parties to this action (collectively referred to as “the parties”), Plaintiff Jaime Beltran

21

(CDCR No. K87116) (“Plaintiff”), by and through his counsel of record, and Defendants E.

22

Baker, B. Cross, D. Tran, M. Swett, G. Smith, and T. Guerra (“Defendants”), by and through their

23

counsel of record, hereby stipulate and request that the Court modify the discovery and

24

scheduling order to extend the deadline for Defendants to depose Plaintiff; file a motion to

25

compel Plaintiff’s deposition, if necessary; and file pretrial motions. This is the second

26

stipulation seeking to accomplish this task.

27
28

A scheduling order may be modified only upon a showing of good cause and by leave of
Court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A), 16(b)(4); see, e.g., Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975
1
Second Stipulation to Modify the Disc. and Scheduling Order; [Proposed] Order (2:17-cv-01520 TLN AC)

1

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

2

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

3

primarily focuses on the diligence of the party seeking the modification. Johnson, 975 F.2d at

4

609 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 advisory committee’s notes of 1983 amendment). When an act

5

must be done within a specified time, the court may, for good cause, extend the time with or

6

without motion or notice if the court acts, or if a request is made, before the original time expires.

7

Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A).

8
9
10

Good cause exists to modify the discovery and scheduling order based on the following
procedural history of this matter:
1.

On April 21, 2021, Defendants’ counsel, Erik A. Gutierrez, and Plaintiff Jaime

11

Beltran appeared for the timely-noticed deposition of Plaintiff. Before the deposition was

12

scheduled to begin, Plaintiff informed Mr. Gutierrez that he had retained counsel in the matter by

13

signing a retainer agreement and mailing it to the Law Office of Jarrett Adams, PLLC. Although

14

Plaintiff was not represented by an attorney of record at that time, out of an abundance of caution,

15

Mr. Gutierrez and Plaintiff agreed to postpone Plaintiff’s deposition to give his attorney an

16

opportunity to enter an appearance. The agreement between Plaintiff and Mr. Gutierrez was set

17

forth on the record. The declaration of Erik A. Gutierrez authenticating and attaching the

18

transcript containing the agreement was concurrently filed with the prior stipulation.

19

2.

On April 23, 2021, Lillian C. Munoz (SBN 27947) filed entered her appearance as

20

counsel of record for Plaintiff. (ECF No. 32.) Ms. Munoz is a member of the Law Office of Jarrett

21

Adams, PLLC. (Id.) On the same day, Mr. Adams filed a pro hac vice application. (ECF No. 33.)

22
23
24

3.

On April 29, 2021, Ms. Munoz entered a stipulation to modify the discovery and

scheduling order to allow Defendants to depose Plaintiff, which the Court granted. (ECF No. 38.)

4.

On June 1, 2021, Defendants’ counsel began the deposition of Plaintiff Jaime Beltran.

25

After several hours, Plaintiff indicated that he could not continue with the deposition due to a

26

personal health reason. The parties agreed on the record to temporarily halt the deposition and to

27

complete the deposition at a later date.

28
2
Second Stipulation to Modify the Disc. and Scheduling Order; [Proposed] Order (2:17-cv-01520 TLN AC)

1

5.

The parties agreed to finish Plaintiff’s deposition on June 11, 2021. Defendants’

2

counsel sent a notice for the deposition, and all parties appeared via Zoom videoconference for

3

the deposition at 8:00 a.m. Although Plaintiff’s correctional institution provided a room and

4

video equipment which Plaintiff used to appear for the deposition, Plaintiff could not be heard on

5

the video equipment because there was excessive background noise at the correctional institution.

6

The parties spoke with correctional staff, who explained that the noise would not abate before

7

11:00 a.m., because other inmates were being transported back and forth from court appearances

8

in the hallway outside of the room. Correctional staff explained that there was no alternate

9

microphone or headset available that could be used to reduce the background noise interference.

10

6.

In an attempt to continue with the deposition, the parties requested that Plaintiff be

11

placed in an alternate room. Unfortunately, the only available room was directly across the same

12

noisy hallway. Correctional staff moved Plaintiff to the other available room, but the excessive

13

background noise continued to interfere with the parties’ ability to hear Plaintiff. The parties

14

agreed that it was impossible to proceed with Plaintiff’s deposition under the circumstances.

15

7.

Defendants’ counsel was unavailable due to personal leave from June 14-17, 22, 23,

16

29, and 30, 2021. Accordingly, Defendants’ counsel was not able to re-schedule Plaintiff’s

17

deposition for those days.

18

8.

Thus, both parties agree that good causes exists to modify the discovery and

19

scheduling order on the grounds that Defendants’ counsel attempted to take and complete

20

Plaintiff’s deposition, but was not able to do so as a result of unanticipated circumstances beyond

21

his control as described above.

22

9.

Should the Court modify the discovery deadline, modification of the pretrial motion

23

deadline will be necessary in order to permit sufficient time between the close of discovery and

24

the pretrial motion deadline to prepare any such motion. Defendants assert that they will be

25

severely prejudiced without the ability to depose Plaintiff in this matter, which is critical to

26

Defendants’ investigation of the matter, and to Defendants’ ability to prepare and file a motion

27

for summary judgment.

28
3
Second Stipulation to Modify the Disc. and Scheduling Order; [Proposed] Order (2:17-cv-01520 TLN AC)

1

10.

For purposes of consistency and uniform deadlines in this matter, Plaintiff’s counsel

2

also requests that the deadline to depose Defendants and file a motion to compel said depositions

3

likewise be extended to the same date as the deadline to complete Plaintiff’s deposition.

4

Defendants’ counsel has no objection to this request.

5

///

6

///

7

///

8

///

9

///

10

///

11

///

12

///

13

///

14

///

15

///

16

///

17

///

18

///

19

///

20

///

21

///

22

///

23

///

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///
4
Second Stipulation to Modify the Disc. and Scheduling Order; [Proposed] Order (2:17-cv-01520 TLN AC)

1

For these reasons, the parties hereby stipulate and agree to the following:

2

1.

The parties request that the Court extend the deadlines to: (1) complete non-expert

3

depositions to July 30, 2021; (2) file a motion to compel non-expert depositions, if necessary, to

4

August 14, 2021; and (3) file pretrial motions to October 22, 2021. In all other respects, the

5

discovery and scheduling order should remain unchanged.

6

2.

Plaintiff’s deposition shall be rescheduled and completed at a later time consistent

7

with the Court’s anticipated modification of the discovery and scheduling order consistent with

8

this stipulation.

9

Dated: June 30, 2021

ROB BONTA
Attorney General of California
JOANNA B. HOOD
Supervising Deputy Attorney General

10
11

/S/ ERIK A. GUTIERREZ

12

ERIK A. GUTIERREZ
Deputy Attorney General
Attorneys for Defendants E. Baker, B.
Cross, D. Tran, M. Swett, G. Smith, and T.
Guerra

13
14
15
16

Dated: June 30, 2021

LAW OFFICE OF JARRETT ADAMS PLLC

17

/S/ LILLIAN C. MUNOZ

18

LILLIAN C. MUNOZ
Attorneys for Plaintiff Jaime Beltran

19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21

DATED: July 1, 2021

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
Second Stipulation to Modify the Disc. and Scheduling Order; [Proposed] Order (2:17-cv-01520 TLN AC)