Thompson v. Saukhla ( 2021 )

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 Defendants Briggs, Cortez, Galvan, Haile, and Saukhla 8 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 SACRAMENTO DIVISION 12 13 FELICIA THOMPSON, No. 2:18-cv-02422 WBS-KJN 14 Plaintiff, STIPULATED REQUEST TO MODIFY 15 AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER TO v. EXTEND DEADLINE TO FILE 16 DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS BY SEVEN- DAYS 17 NARINDER SAUKHLA, et al., Trial Date: July 27, 2021 18 Defendants. Action Filed: September 3, 2018 19 20 Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 16(b)(1)(A) and Local Rule 143, the parties, 21 through their respective counsel of record, stipulate to and request a modification of the July 21, 22 2020 Amended Scheduling Order (ECF No. 73) to extend the deadline to file dispositive motions 23 by seven days. Good cause exists grant this stipulated request because Defendants Saukhla and 24 Briggs require more time to file their summary-judgment motion while the parties meet and 25 confer about the issues to be raised in their anticipated motion. 26 When an act must be done within a specified time, the court may, for good cause, extend 27 the time with or without motion or notice if the court acts, or if a request is made, before the 28 original time expires. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A). A scheduling order may be modified only upon 1 a showing of good cause and by leave of Court. Id. 16(b)(4); see, e.g., Johnson v. Mammoth 2 Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (describing the factors a court should consider in ruling on 3 such a motion). In considering whether a party moving for a schedule modification has good 4 cause, the Court primarily focuses on the diligence of the party seeking the modification. 5 Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 advisory committee’s notes of 1983 6 amendment). “The district court may modify the pretrial schedule ‘if it cannot reasonably be met 7 despite the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.’” Id. (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 8 advisory committee notes of 1983 amendment). 9 The current deadline to file dispositive motions is March 8, 2021. (ECF No. 73.) Despite 10 the diligent efforts of counsel for Defendants Briggs, Cortez, Galvan, Haile, and Saukhla, the 11 Defendants will not be able to complete their motion for summary judgment by the current 12 deadline due to deadlines in other cases defense counsel is handling. These deadlines arose after 13 the Court issued the amended scheduling order here and include, but are not limited to, a reply to 14 four oppositions to a motion to dismiss, opposition to an appeal-related motion in the Ninth 15 Circuit, and a motion to partially dismiss an appeal. 16 Also, on February 18, 2021, counsel for Defendants Briggs, Cortez, Galvan, Haile, and 17 Saukhla sent a meet-and-confer email to Plaintiff’s counsel requesting dismissal of certain 18 Defendants and claims that would narrow the issues raised in the summary-judgment motion 19 Defendants intend to file. Although the parties reached agreement as to Defendants Cortez, 20 Galvan, and Haile, they are still conferring about certain claims against Briggs. If an agreement 21 cannot be reached, Defendants will require time to add this argument to their motion, but which 22 cannot be accomplished in the time remaining if an agreement is not reached. 23 The parties have agreed that Defendants will file their dispositive motion(s) on or before 24 March 15, 2021; oppositions will be due on April 5; replies on April 12; and the hearing on all 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 1 motions will be set for April 19, 2021. This requested extension of the dispositive-motion 2 deadline will not affect any other deadline, including the July 27 trial date, in the Amended 3 Scheduling Order. For these reasons, good cause exists to modify the Amended Scheduling Order 4 and extend the dispositive-motion deadline by seven days. 5 IT IS SO STIPULATED. 6 Dated: March 3, 2021 Respectfully submitted, 7 XAVIER BECERRA Attorney General of California 8 PETER A. MESHOT Supervising Deputy Attorney General 9 10 /s/ Diana Esquivel DIANA ESQUIVEL 11 Deputy Attorney General Attorneys for Defendants Briggs, Cortez, Galvan, 12 Haile, and Saukhla 13 Dated: March 3, 2021 KING HALL CIVIL RIGHTS CLINIC 14 15 /s/ Carter C. White (as authorized 3/3/21) CARTER C. WHITE 16 Attorneys for Plaintiff Felicia Thompson 17 Dated: March 3, 2021 LONGYEAR, O’DEA & LAVRA, LLP 18 19 /s/ Nicole M. Cahill (as authorized 3/3/21) 20 VAN LONGYEAR NICOLE M. CAHILL 21 Attorneys for Defendants Naidoo and Portugal 22 SA2018302831 23 34875702.docx 24 25 26 27 28 1 ORDER 2 Good cause appearing, the parties’ stipulated request to modify the July 21, 2020 Amended 3 | Scheduling Order (ECF No. 73) is GRANTED. 4 Dispositive motions shall be filed on or before March 15, 2021, and shall be set for hearing 5 | onthe Court’s next available hearing date thereafter. Oppositions and replies shall be filed in 6 | accordance with Local Rule 230. In all other respects, the July 21, 2020 Amended Scheduling 7 | Order remains in full force and effect. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 | Dated: March 4, 2021 he Lhe VA, hh.te— 10 WILLIAM B. SHUBB UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ~ Stipulated Request to Modify Scheduling Order re: 7-Day Extension of Dispositive-Motion Deadline □□□□□□