Grindstone Indian Rancheria et al v. Olliff

Filing 26

STIPULATION and ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 1/9/19 MODIFYING the Discovery Schedule as follows: Designation of Expert Witnesses due by 3/29/2019. Supplemental disclosure due by 4/12/2019. Discovery due by 5/31/2019. Disp ositive Motions filed by 7/2/2019. Joint pretrial statement due by 8/30/2019. Dispositive Motion Hearing set for 7/30/2019 at 01:30 PM in Courtroom 6 (JAM) before District Judge John A. Mendez. Pretrial Conference set for 9/6/2019 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 6 (JAM) before District Judge John A. Mendez. Jury Trial set for 10/21/2019 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 6 (JAM) before District Judge John A. Mendez. (Coll, A)

4

Jack Duran Jr.
Duran Law Office
4010 Foothills Blvd.
S-103, #98
Roseville, CA 95747
[phone] (Office)
[phone] (Fax)
[e-mail]

5

Attorney For:

6

Grindstone Rancheria et al

1
2
3

7
8
9
10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

)
)
)
)
GRINDSTONE INDIAN RANCHERIA, et al )
)
)
Plaintiff
)
)
)
vs.
)
)
TERRANCE OLLIFF et al
)
Defendants.

Case Number: 2-17-cv-02292-JAM-EFB
STIPULATION TO EXTEND
DISCOVERY CUT-OFF DATE AND
ORDER
F.R.C.P. 16(b)(4)

)

21
)
22
23

The parties to the above-entitled action hereby jointly request to the extension of the

24

Discovery Cut-Off period pending a good faith attempt to settle the dispute. The parties,

25

Plaintiffs, Grindstone Rancheria et al (collectively “Plaintiffs”) and Defendants, Terrence Olliff

26

et al (collectively “Defendants”), through their respective attorneys of record, hereby jointly

27

stipulate to an extension of the currently scheduled discovery deadlines as set forth below.

28
Page 1 of 4
Form updated August 2014

RECITALS/GROUNDS FOR RELIEF

1

Pursuant to Rule 16, a party may seek modification of a scheduling order,

2
3

including modification of a discovery cut-off date, “only for good cause and with a judge’s

4

consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). “Good cause” exists when a scheduling deadline “cannot

5

reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.” Schaffner v. Crown

6

Equipment Corporation, No. C 09-00284 SBA, 2011 WL 6303408, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 16,

7

2011) (citing Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9 Cir. 1992). A party

8

may establish good the cause by showing (1) that [he or she] was diligent in assisting the court in

9

creating a workable Rule 16 order; (2) that [his or her] noncompliance with a rule 16 deadline

10

occurred or will occur, notwithstanding [his or her] diligent efforts to comply, because of the

11

development of matters which could not have been reasonably foreseen or anticipated at the time

12

of the Rule 16 scheduling conference; and (3) that [he or she] was diligent in seeking amendment

13

of the Rule 16 order, once it became apparent that he or she could not comply with the order.

14

Hood v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co., 567 F.Supp.2d 1221, 1224 (E.D. Cal. 2008) (citation

15

omitted).
WHEREAS, the current deadline to complete all non-expert discovery is December 28,

16
17
18

2018.
WHEREAS, the Parties stipulate to extend the written discovery cut-off deadline

19

because they are making a diligent effort to settle this matter and believe that additional time is

20

needed to remedy a good faith misunderstanding between the parties and adequately and fairly

21

complete the discovery process, specifically with regards to several depositions that could not be

22

scheduled before the discovery cut-off date expired;

23
24
25
26
27
28

WHEREAS, the parties originally believed at the time of the Rule 16 scheduling
conference that non-expert discovery would be completed by the current discovery cut-off
deadline and worked together to prepare a comprehensive proposed scheduling report for the
Court’s convenience;
WHEREAS, the parties recently discussed a good faith attempt to settle their dispute
prior to the expiration of the non-expert witness discovery date, which has resulted in
Page 2 of 4
Form updated August 2014

1

postponement of depositions and other issues and makes compliance with the current discovery

2

cut-off date unlikely;
WHEREAS, the current non-expert discovery deadline recently past, putting pressure on

3
4

the parties, thereby creating a situation that may become more adversarial than otherwise need

5

be;
WHEREAS extending the deadline pursuant to this stipulation will allow the parties an

6
7

opportunity to negotiate informally to complete the discovery process without involvement with

8

the court;
WHEREAS, the parties make this request to extend the written discovery cutoff date

9
10

almost an entire month prior to its arrival, and only after diligent attempts by both parties to

11

avoid such, but ultimately concluding doing so is not feasible;
AND WHEREAS, THE PARTIES STIPULATE AND AGREE TO THE

12
13

FOLLOWING DISCOVERY SCHEDULE MODIFICATION:

14

*

Expert witness disclosure:

3/29/19;

15

*

Supplemental disclosure:

4/12/19;

16

*

Discovery cutoff:

5/31/19;

17

*

Dispositive motion filing:

7/2/19;

18

*

Dispositive motion hearing:

7/30/19 @ 1:30 p.m.;

19

*

Joint pretrial statement due:

8/30/19

20

*

Pretrial conference:

9/6/19 @ 10:00 a.m.

21

*

Jury trial:

10/21/19 @ 9:00 a.m.

22
23

SO STIPULATED.
Dated: 01/09/19

/S/Jack Duran, Jr.
Jack Duran, Jr. Counsel for Plaintiff, Grindstone
Rancheria

Dated: 01/09/19

/S/David R. Griffith
David R. Griffith, Counsel for Defendants, Terrance
Olliff et al

24
25
26
27
28

Page 3 of 4
Form updated August 2014

1
ORDER

2
3
4

The Stipulation of the parties is accepted and the discovery schedule is acceptable to the

5

Court and is so modified.

6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
8

Date: 1/9/2019

9

/s/ John A. Mendez____________
Judge of Federal District Court
Eastern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Page 4 of 4
Form updated August 2014