(PC) Gomes v. Mathis ( 2021 )

1 ROB BONTA, State Bar No. 202668 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 EXTEND EXPERT-DISCLOSURE v. DEADLINE BY THIRTY DAYS 15 16 DAVID M. MATHIS, et al., Action Filed: September 22, 2017 17 Defendants. 18 19 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(d) and 16(b)(4) and Local Rule 143, Plaintiff pro 20 se, Lawrence Gomes, and Defendant Lotersztain, through her attorney of record, stipulate to and 21 request a thirty-day extension of the deadline to disclose expert witnesses; the current deadline is 22 August 2, 2021, based on the Court’s May 6, 2021 Order (ECF No. 67). This request for an 23 extension is needed because the parties require more time to disclose expert witnesses. 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 Since the Court granted the parties’ last stipulation (see ECF No. 67), the parties have 8 completed discovery. Due to Plaintiff’s medical condition, his deposition was taken in two 9 sessions on May 28 and June 29. Defense counsel received the transcript of Plaintiff’s June 29 10 deposition around July 21, and requires more time to review the transcript to ascertain whether a 11 retained heart specialist is needed based on Plaintiff’s testimony. Plaintiff if scheduled to undergo 12 two outpatient medical procedures during the week of August 2, and has been focusing on those 13 matters such that he also requests an extension of the disclosure deadline. The parties do not 14 anticipate that this requested extension will affect any other scheduling deadline and that they will 15 be able to complete expert discovery by the current October 1, 2021 deadline. Good cause 16 therefore exists to grant this stipulated request. 17 IT IS SO STIPULATED. 18 Dated: August 2, 2021 Respectfully submitted, 19 ROB BONTA Attorney General of California 20 PETER A. MESHOT Supervising Deputy Attorney General 21 22 /s/ Diana Esquivel DIANA ESQUIVEL 23 Deputy Attorney General Attorneys for Defendant Lotersztain 24 25 Dated: August 2, 2021 /s/ Larry Gomes (as authorized 8/2/21) 26 LAWRENCE G. GOMES Plaintiff pro se 27 LA2019501633 28 35340107.docx 1 ORDER 2 Good cause appearing, the parties’ stipulated request for a thirty day extension of the expert 3 | disclosure deadlines is GRANTED. 4 The parties shall disclose expert witnesses on or before September 1, 2021. 5 In all other respects, the May 6, 2021 Amended Scheduling Order (ECF No. 67) and the 6 | original December 16, 2019 Scheduling Order (ECF No. 53) remain in full force. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 9 Dated: August 6, 2021 Sx