Grindstone Indian Rancheria et al v. Olliff

Filing 28

STIPULATION and ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 3/29/19 MODIFYING the Discovery Schedule as follows: Designation of Expert Witnesses due by 4/12/19. Supplemental Disclosure due by 4/26/19. (Coll, A)

1
2
3
4
5

DAVID R. GRIFFITH, ESQ. (SBN 170172)
GRIFFITH & HORN, LLP
1530 Humboldt Road, Suite 3
Chico, CA 95928
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendants,
TERRANCE OLLIFF and DIANNE L. OLLIFF
Individually and as Trustees of the Olliff Family Trust

6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

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

19

Case Number: 2-17-cv-02292-JAM-EFB
STIPULATION TO EXTEND EXPERT
WITNESS DISCLOSURE DEADLINES,
AND ORDER
F.R.C.P. 16(b)(4)

)
)

20
21

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

22

Witness Disclosure Deadlines pending a good faith attempt to provide full and complete

23

disclosures to the other respective party. The parties, Plaintiffs, Grindstone Rancheria et al

24

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

25

through their respective attorneys of record, hereby jointly stipulate to an extension of the

26

currently scheduled Expert Witness Disclosure Deadlines as set forth below.

27

///

28

///
Page 1 of 4
Stipulation to Extend Expert Witness Disclosure Deadlines, and [Proposed] Order

RECITALS/GROUNDS FOR RELIEF

1
2

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

3

including modification of an expert witness disclosure deadline, “only for good cause and with a

4

judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). “Good cause” exists when a scheduling deadline

5

“cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.” Schaffner v.

6

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

7

16, 2011) (citing Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9 Cir. 1992). A

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

2008) (citation omitted).

16
17

WHEREAS, the current deadline to initially disclosure expert witness information is set
for March 29, 2019 with a supplemental disclosure date of April 12, 2019.

18

WHEREAS, the Parties stipulate to extend both expert witness information disclosure

19

dates because they have been making a diligent effort to settle this matter but have met with an

20

impasse, and believe that additional time is needed to remedy the parties current status of expert

21

witnesses to make a good faith disclosure, and allow the parties to be properly prepared for trial.

22

WHEREAS, the parties originally believed at the time of the Rule 16 scheduling

23

conference that expert witness disclosures would be ready and able to be made by the current

24

expert disclosure deadlines worked together to prepare a comprehensive proposed scheduling

25
26
27
28

report for the Court’s convenience;
WHEREAS, the parties agree that no prejudice will occur to either party should the
expert witness disclosure deadlines be extended.
WHEREAS, extending the deadline pursuant to this stipulation will allow the parties an
Page 2 of 4
Stipulation to Extend Expert Witness Disclosure Deadlines, and [Proposed] Order

1

opportunity to prepare complete expert witness disclosures after reaching an impasse in good

2

faith settlement negotiations;

3

WHEREAS, the parties make this request to extend the expert witness disclosure

4

deadlines the day prior to the initial disclosure deadline, and only after diligent attempts by both

5

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

6
7

FOLLOWING DISCOVERY SCHEDULE MODIFICATION:

8

*

Expert witness disclosure:

4/12/19; and

9

*

Supplemental disclosure:

4/26/19.

The remainder of the Discovery Schedule will remain unchanged from the Order Dated

10
11

January 10, 2019 as follows:

12

*

Discovery cutoff:

5/31/19;

13

*

Dispositive motion filing:

7/2/19;

14

*

Dispositive motion hearing:

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

15

*

Joint pretrial statement due:

8/30/19

16

*

Pretrial conference:

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

17

*

Jury trial:

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

SO STIPULATED.

18
19

Dated: 03/28/2019

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

Dated: 03/28/2019

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

20
21
22
23
24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///
Page 3 of 4
Stipulation to Extend Expert Witness Disclosure Deadlines, and [Proposed] Order

ORDER

1
2
3

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

4

acceptable to the Court and is so modified.

5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6
7
8

Date: March 29, 2019

/s/ John A. Mendez____________
Judge of the U. S. District Court
Eastern District of California

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Page 4 of 4
Stipulation to Extend Expert Witness Disclosure Deadlines, and [Proposed] Order