Levy v. City of Sacramento ( 2019 )

1 SUSANA ALCALA WOOD, City Attorney (SBN 156366) 2 KATHLEEN T. ROGAN, Senior Deputy City Attorney (SBN 186055) KRogan@cityofsacramento.org 3 CITY OF SACRAMENTO 915 I Street, Room 4010 4 Sacramento, CA 95814-2608 Telephone: (916) 808-5346 5 Facsimile: (916) 808-7455 6 Attorneys for the CITY OF SACRAMENTO 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BYRON H. LEVY, Case No.: 2:18-cv-02387-TLN-DB 12 13 Plaintiff, S DT ISIP CU OL VA ET RI YO N C UT TO - OC FO FN AT NIN DU E EXPERT DISCLOSURE DATES; 14 vs. ORDER 15 CITY OF SACRAMENTO, 16 Defendant. 17 18 Pursuant to Rule 16, a party may seek to modify a scheduling order, including 19 modification of a discovery cut-off date “for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” (Fed. 20 R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4).) “good cause” exists when a scheduling deadline “cannot reasonably be 21 met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.” (Schaffner v. Crown Equipment 22 Corporation, 2011 WL 6303408 at *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2011) (citing Johnson v. Mammoth 23 Recreation, Inc., 975 F 2d. 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). A party may establish good cause by 24 showing 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// /// 1 16 order; 2) that [his or her] noncompliance with a Rule 16 deadline occurred 2 or will occur, notwithstanding [his or her] diligent efforts to comply, because of the development of matters which could not have been reasonably foreseen 3 or anticipated at the time of the Rule 16 scheduling conference; and 3) that [he or she] was diligent in seeking amendment of the Rule 16 order once it 4 became apparent that he or she could not comply with the order. 5 (Hood v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co., 567 F. Supp. 2d 1221, 1224 (E.D. Cal. 2008.) 6 The deadline to complete all non-expert discovery was June 2, 2019. 7 The deadline to disclose experts was August 1, 2019. 8 The deadline to file dispositive motions is November 27, 2019. 9 Due to a variety of reasons including illness, leaves of absence, and other trial work, these 10 deadlines have passed before the parties were able to complete discovery or secure experts. 11 Consequently, the parties are not in a position to file dispositive or partially dispositive 12 motions. The parties have spoken and agree that extending the deadlines for discovery and 13 dispositive motions allows them to finish evaluating their case and to potentially limit the 14 issues for trial which would shorten the impact on the court’s calendar. 15 The City filed its answer in this case on October 14, 2018; the case has not been pending 16 one year. There is no trial date. Therefore, the parties have stipulated and respectfully request 17 the court’s consideration of the following modifications to the Rule 16 Scheduling order: 18 1. Non-expert discovery to close March 1, 2020. 19 2. Expert disclosure to occur April 1, 2020 20 Supplemental disclosure 30 day later. 21 3. Dispositive motions filed August 28, 2020 (180 days after close of discovery) 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 1 2 DATED: September 26, 2019 SUSANA ALCALA WOOD, City Attorney 3 4 5 By: /s/ Kathleen T. Rogan KATHLEEN T. ROGAN 6 Senior Deputy City Attorney Attorneys for the 7 CITY OF SACRAMENTO 8 9 10 11 DATED: September 25, 2019 LAW OFFICES OF AKUDINOBI & IKONTE 12 13 14 By: /s/ CHIJIOKE IKONTE CHIJIOKE IKONTE 15 Attorney for the Plaintiff BYRON LEVY 16 17 ORDER 18 The court finds sufficient good cause to continue the discovery and dispositive motion 19 dates. The Rule 16 scheduling order is amended accordingly: Non-expert discovery shall 20 close March 1, 2020. Expert disclosure will occur on April 1, 2020 with supplemental 21 disclosure 30 day later. Dispositive motions or partial dispositive motions shall be filed 22 August 28, 2020 (180 days after close of discovery). 23 24 Dated: September 30, 2019 25 26 27