Selene Finance, LP v. County of Sacramento et al

Filing 58

STIPULATION and ORDER signed by District Judge Daniel J. Calabretta on 9/24/24 MODIFYING the discovery deadlines as follows: Fact Discovery: 1/17/25; Expert disclosure: 2/21/25; Rebuttal experts: 3/14/25; Close of Expert Discovery: 4/11/25. (Salmeron, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

SHAWN M. KROGH, Bar No. 227116
MARIE C. AVERY, Bar No. 345344
KROGH & DECKER, LLP
555 Capitol Mall, Suite 700
Sacramento, CA 95814
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
Email:
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
JOHN B. SULLIVAN, Bar No. 238306
LONG & LEVIT LLP
465 California Street, Suite 500
San Francisco, California 94104
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
Email:
[e-mail]
Attorney for Defendant
MALCOLM & CISNEROS

13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

14

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

15
16
17

Plaintiff,

18

v.

19
20
21
22

Case No. 2:23-cv-01124-DJC-CKD

SELENE FINANCE LP,

Assigned to District Judge Daniel J.
Calabretta

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO; JIM
COOPER, solely in his official capacity as
the SHERIFF OF SACRAMENTO COUNTY;
MALCOLM & CISNEROS, a California Law
Corporation; and DOES 1-25,

STIPULATED MOTION TO MODIFY
DISCOVERY DEADLINES AND ORDER
Complaint Filed:
Case Removed:
Trial:

November 18, 2020
June 12, 2023
January 26, 2026

Defendants.

23
24
25
26
27
28
1

Case No. 2:23-cv-01124-DJC-CKD

JOINT REQUEST TO MODIFY DISCOVERY DEADLINES AND ORDER
4869-7977-6232, v. 1

1

Pursuant to Local Rules 137, 143, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 5, 16(b)(4), 83

2

and Judge Calabretta’s Standing Order in Civil Actions I(A), Plaintiff SELENE FINANCE

3

LP (“Plaintiff” or “Selene”) and Defendant MALCOLM & CISNEROS, A LAW

4

CORPORATION (“Defendant”) (collectively, the “Parties) by and through their respective

5

counsel, respectfully submit this stipulated motion requesting that the discovery deadlines

6

be modified without oral argument as follows:

7

1.

Fact Discovery extended from November 15, 2024 to January 17, 2025.

8

2.

Expert disclosure extended from December 13, 2024 to February 21, 2025.

9

3.

Rebuttal experts extended from January 10, 2025 to March 14, 2025.

10

4.

Close of Expert Discovery extended from February 7, 2025 to April 11,

11
12
13
14

2025.
To support this stipulated motion, the parties provide a Joint Proposed Order, as
required by Local Rule 137.
“[D]istrict judges have broad discretion to manage discovery and to control the

15

course of litigation under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16.”

16

Remediation Trust, 633 F.3d 828, 833 (9th Cir. 2011). In general, the pretrial scheduling

17

order can only be modified “upon a showing of good cause.” Zivkovic v. S. Cal. Edison Co.,

18

302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975

19

F.2d 604, 608 (9th Cir. 1992)); accord Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). “The pretrial schedule may

20

be modified ‘if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the

21

extension….’” Zivkovic, 302 F.3d at 1087 (quoting Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609).

22

Avila v. Willits Env't

There is good cause to modify the non-expert and expert discovery cutoffs in this

23

litigation. Malcolm & Cisneros did not answer the complaint until November 7, 2023.

24

Shortly thereafter, the parties including the County of Sacramento and Jim Cooper in his

25

official capacity as the Sheriff of Sacramento, began settlement discussions. These

26

discussions included a January 2024 settlement conference with Magistrate Judge

27

Jeremy D. Peterson. Following that conference, the parties to the litigation continued to

28

refrain from discovery to discus settlement.
2

Case No. 2:23-cv-01124-DJC-CKD

JOINT REQUEST TO MODIFY DISCOVERY DEADLINES AND ORDER
4869-7977-6232, v. 1

1

To date, these discussions have resulted in the County and Sheriff entering into a

2

settlement agreement with Plaintiff. Plaintiff and Malcolm & Cisneros have continued to

3

engage in settlement discussions, including a settlement call with one another last week.

4

These discussions have narrowed the gap between the parties.

5

Although the parties have made initial disclosures and served some written

6

discovery, they have refrained from embarking on deposition and third-party discovery as

7

they discussed settlement. The parties anticipate beginning such discovery in the next

8

few weeks if they cannot reach settlement.

9

The Parties will suffer substantial harm and prejudice absent a continuance.

10

Notwithstanding the Parties’ diligent efforts, in light of ongoing settlement discussion, the

11

current discovery cutoffs cannot reasonably be met. Accordingly, the Parties jointly

12

request that the discovery deadlines be modified as set forth above.

13

JUDGE CALABRETTA’S CIVIL STANDING ORDER I(C) JOINT CERTIFICATION

14

Shawn M. Krogh and John B. Sullivan, respective counsel of record for the Parties,

15

pursuant to U.S.C. 28 § 1746, hereby affirm that we are over 18 years of age and are

16

competent to make the following declaration:

17

1. Shawn M. Krogh is counsel for Plaintiff in the above-captioned action and is a

18

partner with the law firm of Krogh & Decker LLP, attorney of record for Plaintiff. By and

19

through this representation, Mr. Krogh has personal knowledge of the matters set forth

20

herein and, if called upon to testify, has represented that he could and would testify

21

competently thereto.

22

2. John B. Sullivan is counsel for Defendant in the above-captioned action and is a

23

partner with the law firm of Long & Levit LLP, attorney of record for Defendant. By and

24

through this representation, Mr. Sullivan has personal knowledge of the matters set forth

25

herein and, if called upon to testify, has represented that he could and would testify

26

competently thereto.

27
28

3. On April 12, 2024, the Court entered the Scheduling Order setting certain
deadlines for discovery in this matter.
3

Case No. 2:23-cv-01124-DJC-CKD

JOINT REQUEST TO MODIFY DISCOVERY DEADLINES AND ORDER
4869-7977-6232, v. 1

1
2
3
4
5

4. The Scheduling Order set fact discovery to be completed no later than November
15, 2024.
5. The Scheduling Order set all expert discovery to be completed no later than
February 7, 2025.
6. The Scheduling Order set all dispositive motions, except motions for

6

continuances, temporary restraining orders, or other emergency applications, to be filed on

7

or before May 23, 2025 and noticed for hearing before Judge Calabretta on July 10, 2025

8

at 1:30 p.m.

9
10
11
12
13

7. The Court set the final pretrial conference for November 20, 2025 at 1:30 p.m.
8. The Parties have met and conferred regarding this request and have reached the
agreement set forth above.
9. In light of the above, the Parties jointly and respectfully request that the Court
modify all subsequent deadlines as set forth in the Proposed Order.

14
Respectfully submitted,

15
16

Dated: September 23, 2024

KROGH & DECKER, LLP

17
18

/s/ Marie C. Avery
SHAWN M. KROGH
Attorneys for Plaintiff
SELENE FINANCE, LP

19
20
21
22

Dated: September 23, 2024

LONG & LEVIT LLP

23
24

/s/ John B. Sullivan
JOHN B. SULLIVAN
Attorneys for Defendant
MALCOLM & CISNEROS

25
26
27
28

4

Case No. 2:23-cv-01124-DJC-CKD

JOINT REQUEST TO MODIFY DISCOVERY DEADLINES AND ORDER
4869-7977-6232, v. 1

ORDER

1
2
3

Having found good cause exists pursuant to FRCP 16(b)(4), the Court GRANTS
the Parties’ request to modify the discovery deadlines as follows:

4

1.

Fact Discovery extended from November 15, 2024 to January 17, 2025.

5

2.

Expert disclosure extended from December 13, 2024 to February 21, 2025.

6

3.

Rebuttal experts extended from January 10, 2025 to March 14, 2025.

7

4.

Close of Expert Discovery extended from February 7, 2025 to April 11,

8

2025.

9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11
12

Dated: September 24, 2024

13

/s/ Daniel J. Calabretta
THE HONORABLE DANIEL J. CALABRETTA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5

Case No. 2:23-cv-01124-DJC-CKD

JOINT REQUEST TO MODIFY DISCOVERY DEADLINES AND ORDER
4869-7977-6232, v. 1