Biedma v. Clark et al
Filing
52
STIPULATION AND ORDER RE CASE MANAGEMENT. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 10/21/15. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/21/2015)
1
2
3
4
5
CAROLINE L. FOWLER, City Attorney (SBN 110313)
ROBERT L. JACKSON, Assistant City Attorney (SBN 101770)
City of Santa Rosa
100 Santa Rosa Avenue, Room 8
Santa Rosa, California 95404
Telephone: (707) 543-3040
Facsimile: (707) 543-3055
Attorneys for Defendants City of Santa Rosa
and Michael Clark
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
KYLE DAVID BIEDMA,
12
15
[PROPOSED] ORDER RE CASE
MANAGEMENT
Plaintiff,
13
14
Case No. C 14-2853 RS
v.
MICHAEL CLARK, an individual; CITY OF
SANTA ROSA, a municipal entity; and
DOES 1 through 20, inclusive,
16
Defendants.
Trial Scheduled for 2/29/16
Judge: The Hon. Richard Seeborg
/
17
18
19
Pursuant to the parties’ Stipulation and good cause appearing, the Court hereby modifies its
20
Case Management Order of May 14, 2015 and orders as follows:
21
(1)
22
23
§26(a)(2) shall be continued from October 22, 2015 until November 5, 2015;
(2)
24
25
the last day for designation of expert witnesses under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
the last day for completion of non expert discovery shall be continued from October 22, 2015
until December 11, 2015;
(3)
26
the last day for completion of expert discovery shall be continued from December 3 until
December 17, 2015; and
27
(4)
28
//
All other dates provided for in the Court’s Case Management Scheduling Order of May 14,
[Proposed] Order Re Case Management
1
Case No. C 14-2853 RS
1
2015 shall remain in place.
2
3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
4
5
10/21/15
DATED: ______________________
_________________________________
The Honorable Richard Seeborg
U.S. District Court Judge
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
[Proposed] Order Re Case Management
2
Case No. C 14-2853 RS
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?