Beltran v. Baker et al

Filing 44

STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 07/14/21 ORDERING the extension of the deadlines to: (1) complete non-expertdepositions to August 31, 2021; (2) file any necessary motion to compel to September 13, 2021; and (3) fil e pretrial motions to November 22, 2021. In all other respects, the discovery and scheduling order should remain unchanged. The parties have also agreed that Defendants responses to all pending written discovery shall be due on August 11, 2021.(Plummer, M)

Download PDF
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: (916) 210-7340 Fax: (916) 324-5203 E-mail: Erik.Gutierrez@doj.ca.gov 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 v. BAKER, et al. , 18 2:17-cv-1520 TLN AC P Plaintiff, THIRD 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 The parties to this action (collectively referred to as “the parties”), Plaintiff Jaime Beltran 20 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 the parties to: (1) complete non-expert depositions to 25 August 31, 2021; (2) file any necessary motion to compel to September 13, 2021; and (3) file 26 pretrial motions to November 22, 2021. This is the third stipulation seeking to accomplish this 27 task. 28 /// 1 Third Stipulation to Modify the Discovery and Scheduling Order (2:17-cv-01520 TLN AC) 1 A scheduling order may be modified only upon a showing of good cause and by leave of 2 Court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A), 16(b)(4); see, e.g., Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 3 F.2d 604, 609 (describing the factors a court should consider in ruling on such a motion). In 4 considering whether a party moving for a schedule modification has shown good cause, the Court 5 primarily focuses on the diligence of the party seeking the modification. Johnson, 975 F.2d at 6 609 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 advisory committee’s notes of 1983 amendment). When an act 7 must be done within a specified time, the court may, for good cause, extend the time with or 8 without motion or notice if the court acts, or if a request is made, before the original time expires. 9 Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A). 10 11 12 Good cause exists to modify the discovery and scheduling order based on the following procedural history of this matter: 1. On June 1, 2021, Defendants’ counsel began the deposition of Plaintiff Jaime Beltran. 13 After several hours, Plaintiff indicated that he could not continue with the deposition due to a 14 personal health reason. The parties agreed on the record to temporarily halt the deposition and to 15 complete the deposition at a later date. 16 2. The parties agreed to finish Plaintiff’s deposition on June 11, 2021. Defendants’ 17 counsel sent a notice for the deposition, and all parties appeared via Zoom videoconference for 18 the deposition at 8:00 a.m. Although Plaintiff’s correctional institution provided a room and 19 video equipment which Plaintiff used to appear for the deposition, Plaintiff could not be heard on 20 the video equipment because there was excessive background noise at the correctional institution. 21 The parties spoke with correctional staff who explained that the noise would not abate before 22 11:00 a.m. because other inmates were being transported back and forth from court appearances 23 in the hallway outside of the room. Correctional staff explained that there was no alternate 24 microphone or headset available that could be used to reduce the background noise interference. 25 3. In an attempt to continue with the deposition, the parties requested that Plaintiff be 26 placed in an alternate room. Unfortunately, the only available room was directly across the same 27 noisy hallway. Correctional staff moved Plaintiff to the other available room, but the excessive 28 2 Third Stipulation to Modify the Discovery and Scheduling Order (2:17-cv-01520 TLN AC) 1 background noise continued to interfere with the parties’ ability to hear Plaintiff. The parties 2 agreed that it was impossible to proceed with Plaintiff’s deposition under the circumstances. 3 4. Defendants’ counsel was unavailable due to personal leave from June 14-17, 22, 23, 4 29, 30, and July 6, and 7, 2021. Accordingly, Defendants’ counsel was not able to re-schedule 5 Plaintiff’s deposition. 6 5. Since the last stipulation to modify the discovery and scheduling order, Defendants’ 7 counsel has accepted an offer of employment outside of state service. Defendants’ counsel will 8 transition to new employment on July 23, 2021. Accordingly, new defense counsel will be 9 assigned in this matter in the near future. Defendants’ new counsel will need an opportunity to 10 review the case file, prepare Defendants for deposition, and to complete Plaintiff’s deposition. 11 12 6. The parties have also agreed that Defendants’ responses to all pending written discovery shall be due on August 11, 2021. 13 7. Thus, good causes exists to modify the discovery and scheduling order on the grounds 14 that Defendants’ counsel attempted to take and complete Plaintiff’s deposition, but was not able 15 to do so as a result of unanticipated circumstances beyond his control as described above. 16 Additionally, as Defendants will be assigned new counsel in the new future, there is good cause 17 to extend the existing deadlines. 18 8. Should the Court modify the discovery deadline, modification of the pretrial motion 19 deadline will be necessary in order to permit sufficient time between the close of discovery and 20 the pretrial motion deadline to prepare any such motion. Defendants assert that they will be 21 severely prejudiced without the ability to depose Plaintiff in this matter, which is critical to 22 Defendants’ investigation of the matter, and to Defendants’ ability to prepare and file a motion 23 for summary judgment. 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 3 Third Stipulation to Modify the Discovery and Scheduling Order (2:17-cv-01520 TLN AC) 1 For these reasons, the parties hereby stipulate and agree to the following: 2 The parties request that the Court extend the deadlines to: (1) complete non-expert 3 depositions to August 31, 2021; (2) file any necessary motion to compel to September 13, 2021; 4 and (3) file pretrial motions to November 22, 2021. In all other respects, the discovery and 5 scheduling order should remain unchanged. The parties have also agreed that Defendants’ 6 responses to all pending written discovery shall be due on August 11, 2021. 7 8 Dated: July 13, 2021 ROB BONTA Attorney General of California JOANNA B. HOOD Supervising Deputy Attorney General 9 10 11 /s/ Erik A. Gutierrez ERIK A. GUTIERREZ Deputy Attorney General Attorneys for Defendants E. Baker, B. Cross, D. Tran, M. Swett, G. Smith, and T. Guerra 12 13 14 15 16 Dated: July 13, 2021 LAW OFFICE OF JARRETT ADAMS PLLC 17 18 /s/ Lillian C. Munoz LILLIAN C. MUNOZ Attorneys for Plaintiff Jaime Beltran 19 20 21 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 DATED: July 14, 2021 24 25 26 27 28 4 Third Stipulation to Modify the Discovery and Scheduling Order (2:17-cv-01520 TLN AC)

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?