J.A.J. v. Jimenez ( 2021 )

1 Panos Lagos, Esq. / SBN 61821 LAW OFFICES OF PANOS LAGOS 2 5032 Woodminster Lane Oakland, CA 94602-2614 3 510.530.4078 510.530.4725 (FAX) 4 E-mail: panos@panoslagoslaw.com 5 Sanjay S. Schmidt (SBN 247475) LAW OFFICE OF SANJAY S. SCHMIDT 6 1388 Sutter Street, Suite 810 San Francisco, CA 94109 7 Tel. (415) 563-8583 Fax (415) 223-9717 8 E-mail: ss@sanjayschmidtlaw.com 9 Attorneys for Plaintiffs, J. A. J., SANTANA JUAREZ JIMENEZ, 10 and TERESA GONZALEZ-VELAZQUEZ 11 XAVIER BECERRA, State Bar No. 118517 Attorney General of California 12 PETER A.MESHOT, State Bar No. 117061 Supervising Deputy Attorney General 13 DIANA ESQUIVEL, State Bar No. 202954 AMIE McTAVISH, State Bar No. 242372 14 Deputy Attorney General 1300 I Street, Suite 125 15 P.O. Box 944255 Sacramento, CA 94244-2550 16 Telephone: (916) 210-7320 Facsimile: (916) 322-8288 17 E-mail: Diana.Esquivel@doj.ca.gov Attorneys for Defendant Jimenez 18 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 20 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 21 J.A.J., a minor, etc., et al., ) Case No.: 1:18-cv-01138-DAD-SKO ) 22 Plaintiffs, ) STIPULATION AND ORDER TO ) MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER 23 v. ) TO EXTEND THE EXPERT ) 24 State of California Highway Patrol Officer ) DISCOVERY DEADLINE EFRAIN JIMENEZ (ID #18075), et al., ) 25 ) (Doc. 49) Defendants. ) 26 ) 27 /// 28 /// STIPULATION AND ORDER TO MODIFY SC HEDULING ORDER TO 1 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) and Local Rule 143, the parties, through their 2 respective counsel of record, stipulate and request to modify the April 15, 2020 Amended Scheduling 3 Order (ECF No. 46, amending ECF No. 23) to extend the deadline by when expert discovery must be 4 completed as follows: 5 Event Date Requested Date Expert Disclosures March 5, 2021 March 31, 2021 6 Rebuttal Expert Disclosures April 2, 2021 April 16, 2021 7 8 Good cause exists to grant this stipulated request because, despite the parties’ diligence, they 9 will not be able to disclose expert witnesses by the current deadline due to the ongoing COVID-19 10 pandemic and resulting restrictions. This requested modifications will not affect any other scheduling 11 deadline. 12 When an act must be done within a specified time, the court may, for good cause, extend the 13 time with or without motion or notice if the court acts, or if a request is made, before the original 14 time expires. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A). A scheduling order may be modified only upon a showing of 15 good cause and by leave of Court. Id. 16(b)(4); see, e.g., Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 16 F.2d 604, 609 (describing the factors a court should consider in ruling on such a motion). In 17 considering whether a party moving for a schedule modification has good cause, the Court primarily 18 focuses on the diligence of the party seeking the modification. Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609 (citing Fed. 19 R. Civ. P. 16 advisory committee’s notes of 1983 amendment). “The district court may modify the 20 pretrial schedule ‘if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the 21 amendment.’” Id. (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 advisory committee notes of 1983 amendment). 22 On April 5, 2019, the Court entered its initial Scheduling Order. (ECF No. 23.) Due to the onset of 23 the COVID-19 pandemic, the parties requested, and the Court granted, an extension of all the 24 scheduling deadlines and trial on April 20, 2020 (ECF No. 46.), and of the deadline to complete non- 25 expert discovery. (ECF No. 48). The Amended Scheduling Order (ECF No. 46) required the parties 26 to complete expert discovery by May 7, 2021. (Id.) It should be noted that, at that time, the full scope 27 and expected duration of the pandemic and concomitant public health measures and restrictions were 28 unknown by public health and government officials, let alone the parties and their respective counsel. STIPULATION AND ORDER TO MODIFY SC HEDULING ORDER TO 1 As such, the Amended Scheduling Order required the parties to complete expert discovery by May 7, 2 2021. (Id.) Distribution of the vaccines did not commence until recently. At the present time, it is not 3 yet known when the pandemic-related restrictions can be lifted. Nevertheless, the parties have 4 engaged in extensive written discovery, including initial disclosures, interrogatories, and requests for 5 production of documents. The parties subpoenaed and obtained relevant records from third parties. 6 Plaintiffs’ and the Guardian Ad Litem’s depositions have been taken and completed, Defendant’s 7 deposition was taken and completed on January 22, 2021, depositions of three witnesses from the 8 Branch & Vine where the incident occurred, Rene Galindo, Julian Gonzales and Fernando Ramirez, 9 were taken and completed on February 4, 2021, and the depositions of two non-party CHP Officers 10 Shandara Kensey and Isaac Martinez, were completed on February 25, 2021 and February 26, 2021, 11 respectively. Despite the parties’ diligence in obtaining discovery, there is third-party discovery that 12 still needs to be completed. The parties seek to depose additional third-party witnesses, including two 13 additional witnesses from the Branch & Vine where the incident occurred, Decedent’s siblings, at 14 least one additional non-party CHP Officer, and Madera County Sheriff’s Person Most Knowledge 15 concerning the production of a video of the shooting incident. 16 Due to the ongoing national pandemic, scheduling and taking depositions is an onerous and 17 time-consuming task. For this reason, the parties sought and obtained this Court’s Order for more 18 time to complete fact discovery. For these same reasons, the parties now seek this Court’s Order to 19 extend the expert disclosure deadlines. In order for the parties’ experts to provide complete and 20 accurate opinions, the depositions of the remaining third-party witnesses need to be completed. Good 21 cause, therefore, exists to continue the deadline to disclose expert witnesses to March 31 and rebuttal 22 experts to April 16, 2021. 23 IT IS SO STIPULATED. 24 Respectfully submitted, 25 Dated: February 26, 2021 LAW OFFICES OF PANOS LAGOS -and- 26 LAW OFFICE OF SANJAY S. SCHMIDT 27 /s/Panos Lagos By: Panos Lagos, Esq. 28 Attorneys for Plaintiffs, J.A.J. and Teresa Gonzalez-Velazquez STIPULATION AND ORDER TO MODIFY SC HEDULING ORDER TO 1 Dated: February 26, 2021 XAVIER BECERRA Attorney General of California 2 PETER A. MESHOT Supervising Deputy Attorney General 3 4 /s/Diana Esquivel (as authorized 02/26/2021) DIANA ESQUIVEL 5 AMIE C. McTAVISH Deputy Attorney General 6 Attorneys for Defendant Jimenez 7 ORDER 8 Good cause appearing, the parties’ above-stipulated request to further modify the April 9 15, 2020 Amended Scheduling Order (Doc. 49) is GRANTED. 10 The expert-related deadlines are CONTINUED as follows: 11 Event Date Expert Disclosures March 31, 2021 12 13 Rebuttal Expert April 16, 2021 Disclosures 14 15 In all other respects, the April 15, 2020 Amended Scheduling Order (Doc. 46) remains in 16 effect. 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 Sheila K. Oberto Dated: March 1, 2021 /s/ . 20 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 STIPULATION AND ORDER TO MODIFY SC HEDULING ORDER TO