Beltran v. Baker et al

Filing 71

STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 4/26/22 ORDERING that the court modifies the 1/27/22 discovery and scheduling order 67 to extend Defendants' response deadline to Plaintiff's initial written discovery, Set No. One, served on May 25, 2021, from April 30, 2022 to May 23, 2022. In all other respects, the discovery and scheduling order should remain unchanged.(Plummer, M) Modified on 4/27/2022 (Plummer, M).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

ROB BONTA, State Bar No. 202668
Attorney General of California
JAY M. GOLDMAN, State Bar No. 168141
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
KYLE A. LEWIS, State Bar No. 201041
Deputy Attorney General
455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000
San Francisco, CA 94102
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendants E. Baker, B. Cross,
D. Tran, M. Swett, G. Smith and T. Guerra

8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SACRAMENTO DIVISION

11
12
13
14
15
16
17

JAIME BELTRAN,

v.

Case No. 2:17-cv-1520 TLN AC P
Plaintiff, STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER TO MODIFY THE DISCOVERY
AND SCHEDULING ORDER
Judge:
The Honorable Allison Claire
Trial Date:
Not set
Action Filed: July 21, 2017

BAKER, et al. ,
Defendants.

18
19

Defendants E. Baker, B. Cross, D. Tran, M. Swett, G. Smith and T. Guerra and Plaintiff

20

Jaime Beltran (CDCR No. K87116), by and through their respective counsel of record, hereby

21

stipulate and request that the Court modify its January 27, 2022 discovery and scheduling order

22

(ECF No. 67) to extend Defendants’ response deadline to Plaintiff’s initial written discovery, Set

23

No. One, served on May 25, 2021, from April 30, 2022 to May 23, 2022. This additional time is

24

requested so that Defendants can continue gathering information for responses to Plaintiff’s

25

discovery after meaningful discussions regarding discovery issues, so that Defendants can assess

26

Plaintiff’s recent settlement demand, and because Defendants’ counsel anticipates that new

27

counsel will be engaged in this matter. In all other respects, the discovery and scheduling order

28
1
Stipulation & [Proposed] Order to Modify the Discovery and Scheduling Order (Case No. 2:17-cv-01520 TLN AC)

1

should remain unchanged. While this is the fifth stipulation to modify the schedule in this matter,

2

it is the first request of its kind following the Court’s January 27 discovery and scheduling order.

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12
13
14

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

Since the last stipulation to modify the discovery and scheduling order, the parties

15

have met and conferred regarding issues identified in Plaintiff’s discovery requests, including the

16

scope of certain requests yielding a voluminous number of responsive materials in electronic mail

17

searches, among other topics. Specifically, the parties met and conferred by email and letter

18

correspondence on March 3, 2022, March 23, 2022, March 30, 2022, April 6, 2022 and April 20,

19

2022. The parties have also met and conferred by telephone conference on March 25, 2022,

20

March 31, 2022 and April 25, 2022.

21

2.

Over the past two months, the parties have engaged in meaningful discussions

22

regarding resolution of the matter, including discussions of the legal issues and case valuation.

23

On March 30, 2022, Plaintiff counsel communicated to defense counsel through letter

24

correspondence a second settlement demand, which Defendants are continuing to assess. In

25

addition, defense counsel explored a further judicial mediation with the Eastern District’s

26

mediation coordinator. Although the parties did not agree to attend mediation at this time,

27

additional time will allow Defendants to more fully assess Plaintiff’s recent demand while still

28

continuing to work on discovery matters.
2
Stipulation & [Proposed] Order to Modify the Discovery and Scheduling Order (Case No. 2:17-cv-01520 TLN AC)

1

3.

In the meantime, defense counsel has continued with the process of conferring with

2

institutional clients on the written discovery responses to Plaintiff’s discovery requests. Further,

3

defense counsel has continued to confer with California Department of Corrections and

4

Rehabilitation staff in efforts to obtain discovery document requests within the written discovery

5

response deadline. In addition, Defendants worked extensively with electronic discovery

6

specialists concerning Plaintiff’s request for production of documents. However, as of April 25,

7

2022, the parties have certain outstanding discovery issues, including as to the scope of Plaintiff’s

8

request for production of documents containing email search requests that have yielded over one

9

million search returns and require additional narrowing of scope. Therefore, Defendants require

10
11

more time to complete its written discovery responses to Plaintiff’s written discovery requests.
4.

Lastly, defense counsel anticipates that new counsel will be assigned in this matter.

12

Defendants’ new counsel will need to become familiar with these issues in the case, assist in

13

providing responses to Plaintiff’s discovery requests presently due on April 30, and contribute to

14

assessing Plaintiff’s recent settlement demand.

15

5.

Accordingly, good causes exists to modify the discovery and scheduling order on the

16

grounds described above, and to minimally extend the existing discovery deadlines. Such an

17

extension could also allow the parties to resolve issues without judicial involvement, and thus

18

preserve the Court’s resources.

19

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

20

The parties request that the Court modify its January 27, 2022 discovery and scheduling

21

order (ECF No. 67) to extend Defendants’ response deadline to Plaintiff’s initial written

22

discovery, Set No. One, served on May 25, 2021, from April 30, 2022 to May 23, 2022.

23

In all other respects, the discovery and scheduling order should remain unchanged.

24
25
26
27
28
3
Stipulation & [Proposed] Order to Modify the Discovery and Scheduling Order (Case No. 2:17-cv-01520 TLN AC)

1

Dated: April 26, 2022

ROB BONTA
Attorney General of California
JAY M. GOLDMAN
Supervising Deputy Attorney General

2
3
4

/s/ Kyle A. Lewis

5

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

6
7
8
9

Dated: April 26, 2022

LAW OFFICE OF JARRETT ADAMS PLLC

10

/s/ Lillian Gaither

11

LILLIAN GAITHER
Attorneys for Plaintiff Jaime Beltran

12
13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16

DATED: April 26, 2022

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
Stipulation & [Proposed] Order to Modify the Discovery and Scheduling Order (Case No. 2:17-cv-01520 TLN AC)