(PC) Gomes v. Mathis ( 2020 )

1 XAVIER BECERRA, State Bar No. 118517 Attorney General of California 2 PETER A. MESHOT, State Bar No. 117061 Supervising Deputy Attorney General 3 DIANA ESQUIVEL, State Bar No. 202954 Deputy Attorney General 4 1300 I Street, Suite 125 P.O. Box 944255 5 Sacramento, CA 94244-2550 Telephone: (916) 210-7320 6 Facsimile: (916) 322-8288 E-mail: Diana.Esquivel@doj.ca.gov 7 Attorneys for Defendant Lotersztain 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SACRAMENTO DIVISION 11 12 LAWRENCE E. GOMES, No. 2:19-cv-01499 KJM-DMC 13 Plaintiff, STIPULATION AND ORDER TO 14 MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER TO v. EXTEND DEADLINES BY SIX MONTHS 15 16 DAVID M. MATHIS, et al., Action Filed: September 22, 2017 17 Defendants. 18 19 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) and Local Rule 143, Plaintiff pro se, 20 Lawrence Gomes, and Defendant Lotersztain stipulate to a six-month extension of all deadlines 21 set out in the December 16, 2019 Scheduling Order. (ECF No. 53.) An extension is needed 22 because the parties require more time to complete discovery in light of the continuing COVID-19 23 pandemic and Plaintiff relocating out of state. 24 When an act must be done within a specified time, the court may, for good cause, extend 25 the time with or without motion or notice if the court acts, or if a request is made, before the 26 original time expires. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A). A scheduling order may be modified only upon 27 a showing of good cause and by leave of Court. Id. 16(b)(4); see, e.g., Johnson v. Mammoth 28 Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (describing the factors a court should consider in ruling on 1 such a motion). In considering whether a party moving for a schedule modification has good 2 cause, the Court primarily focuses on the diligence of the party seeking the modification. 3 Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 advisory committee’s notes of 1983 4 amendment). “The district court may modify the pretrial schedule ‘if it cannot reasonably be met 5 despite the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.’” Id. (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 6 advisory committee notes of 1983 amendment). 7 On December 16, 2019, the Court issued a Scheduling Order requiring the parties to meet 8 the following deadlines: 9 Exchange initial disclosures by December 20, 2019 10 Complete non-expert discovery by May 1, 2020 11 Disclose expert witnesses by June 1, 2020 12 Complete expert discovery by July 31, 2020 13 File dispositive motions by September 25, 2020 14 Good cause exists to modify the Scheduling Order. Since the Court issued the Scheduling 15 Order, the parties have exchanged substantial documents and information with their initial 16 disclosures and other discovery. On March 19, 2020, California Governor Newsom issued 17 Executive Order No. N-33-20, requiring California residents to stay at home, with certain limited 18 exceptions, due to the coronavirus pandemic. Since that time, the movement restrictions have 19 been reduced, but not completely lifted. California and Arizona, where Plaintiff now resides, are 20 currently experiencing a surge in coronavirus cases, such that public and health officials are 21 recommending limited movement to reduce the risk of exposure. In addition, Plaintiff has several 22 risk factors (age and medical condition) that require that he shelter in during the pandemic. 23 Due to the uncertainty concerning how long this national crisis would last and believing 24 that the movement restrictions would be lifted by summer, Defendant moved to extend the 25 scheduling deadlines by three months on April 30, 2020. (See ECF No. 55.) Plaintiff did not 26 oppose the motion and requested a similar extension. (See ECF No. 56.) Not having received a 27 ruling from the Court and realizing that a three-month extension would not be sufficient, defense 28 counsel contacted the Court on July 9, 2020, inquiring about the status of the motion and 1 informing the Court that additional time was needed in light of the continuing pandemic. The 2 Court advised defense counsel to withdraw the pending motion and submit a new motion seeking 3 a longer extension of the scheduling deadlines. Defense counsel contacted Plaintiff by telephone 4 on the same day, and Plaintiff agreed that more than three months was needed to complete 5 discovery, especially since he had moved to Arizona where the coronavirus cases are 6 skyrocketing. 7 The parties therefore agree and request that the Court modify the Scheduling Order as 8 follows: 9 Complete non-expert discovery by November 2, 2020 10 Disclose expert witnesses by December 1, 2020 11 Complete expert discovery by February 1, 2021 12 File dispositive motions by March 26, 2021 13 IT IS SO STIPULATED. 14 Dated: July 13, 2020 Respectfully submitted, 15 XAVIER BECERRA 16 Attorney General of California PETER A. MESHOT 17 Supervising Deputy Attorney General 18 /s/ Diana Esquivel 19 DIANA ESQUIVEL 20 Deputy Attorney General Attorneys for Defendant Lotersztain 21 22 Dated: July 13, 2020 /s/ Larry Gomes (as authorized 7/13/20) 23 LAWRENCE E. GOMES 24 Plaintiff pro se 25 LA2019501633 26 34225119.docx 27 28 MADE Sh VM ITS SUING INIT IVINS UOC IO er POY ST 1 ORDER 2 Good cause appearing, the parties’ stipulated request to modify the December 16 2019 3 | Scheduling Order is GRANTED. The scheduling deadlines are extended as follows: 4 Complete non-expert discovery by November 2, 2020 5 Disclose expert witnesses by December 1, 2020 6 Complete expert discovery by February 1, 2021 7 File dispositive motions by March 26, 2021 8 In all other respects, the December 16, 2019 Scheduling Order (ECF No. 53) remains in full 9 | force and effect. Plaintiff's separate motion for modification of the Scheduling Order (ECF No. 10 56) is denied as unnecessary. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 3 Dated: July 17, 2020 Sx