Levy v. City of Sacramento ( 2020 )

1 S USANA ALCALA WOOD, City Attorney (SBN 156366) KATHLEEN T. ROGAN, Senior Deputy City Attorney (SBN 186055) 2 KRogan@cityofsacramento.org CITY OF SACRAMENTO 3 915 I Street, Room 4010 Sacramento, CA 95814-2608 4 Telephone: (916) 808-5346 Facsimile: (916) 808-7455 5 Attorneys for the CITY OF SACRAMENTO 6 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 Plaintiff, STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO TAKE PLAINTIFF AND 13 DEFENDANT’S DEPOSITION, vs. DISCLOSE EXPERTS, AND FILE 14 DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS CITY OF SACRAMENTO, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Pursuant to Rule 16, a party may seek to modify a scheduling order, including 18 modification of a discovery cut-off date “for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” (Fed. 19 R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4).) “good cause” exists when a scheduling deadline “cannot reasonably be 20 met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.” (Schaffner v. Crown Equipment 21 Corporation, 2011 WL 6303408 at *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2011) (citing Johnson v. Mammoth 22 Recreation, Inc., 975 F 2d. 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). 23 On September 30, 2019, this court approved the parties’ stipulation seeking the 24 continuation of discovery cutoff, expert disclosure, and dispositive motion dates. (Docket 25 number 8.) Discovery currently closes on March 1; expert disclosure occurs April 1, 2020; 26 and dispositive motions are due August 28, 2020. The parties agree to continue these dates 27 because of the inability to complete depositions of plaintiff and defendant City of 1 Sacramento within the current timeframe. 2 Plaintiff’s deposition has been noticed three times. The City noticed it for January 22, 3 February 12, and February 21, 2020. Due to a schedule conflict, the City had to continue the 4 deposition from January 22, 2020 to February 12, 2020. Plaintiff has been unable to appear 5 for deposition on either February 12 or February 21, 2020. Plaintiff’s counsel had trial in the 6 matter of Frank Oti v. Arias in the Los Angeles Superior Court scheduled for February 20, 7 2020. Discovery closes March 1, 2020. 8 The deposition of defendant City of Sacramento’s person(s) most knowledgeable was 9 noticed for February 26, 2020. Defendant is unavailable for the deposition due to scheduling 10 conflict. 11 The City has no availability in March for Plaintiff’s deposition and limited availability in 12 April and May. 13 The City filed its answer in this case on October 14, 2018. The case has been pending 14 only sixteen months. There is no trial date. 15 For the foregoing reasons, the parties stipulate and respectfully request the court’s 16 consideration of the following modifications to the Rule 16 Scheduling order: 17 1) Plaintiff’s deposition shall be completed not later than June 30, 2020; 18 2) Defendant’s deposition shall be completed not later than July 30, 2020; 19 3) Expert disclosure shall occur on August 17, 2020; 20 4) Dispositive motions shall be filed by November 2, 2020. 21 So Stipulated. 22 23 Dated: February 25, 2020 SUSANA ALCALA WOOD, City Attorney 24 25 By: /s/ Kathleen T. Rogan 26 KATHLEEN T. ROGAN Senior Deputy City Attorney 27 Attorneys for the CITY OF SACRAMENTO 1 2 Dated: February 21, 2020 LAW OFFICES OF AKUDINOBI & IKONTE 3 By: /s/ Chijioke Ikonte 4 CHIJIOKE IKONTE Attorney for the Plaintiff 5 BYRON LEVY 6 7 ORDER 8 The court finds sufficient good cause to continue plaintiff’s deposition, expert disclosure 9 and the dispositive motion dates. The Rule 16 scheduling order is amended accordingly: 10 Plaintiff’s deposition shall be completed not later than June 30, 2020, 2) Defendant’s 11 deposition shall be completed not later than July 30, 2020, 3) Expert disclosure shall occur 12 on August 17, 2020, 4) Dispositive motions shall be filed by November 2, 2020. 13 14 Dated: February 25, 2020 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27