Crabtree v. County of Butte ( 2021 )

| Rafey S. Balabanian (SBN — 315962) PORTER | SCOTT 7 || tbalabanian@edelson.com A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION flosnOcieoncom Stephen E. Horan, SBN 125241 3 . William E. Camy, SBN 291397 Brandt Silver-Korn (SBN — 323530) Matthew W. Gross, SBN 324007 4 || bsilverkorn@edelson.com University A Suite 2 Lily E. Hough (SBN — 315277) 350 University \venue, uite 200 [hough@edelson.com Sacramento, California 95825 > ||EDELSON PC TEL: 916.929.1481 6 || 150 California Street, 18th Floor FAX: 916.927.3706 San Francisco, California 94111 7 || Telephone: 415.212.9300 OFFICE OF COUNTY COUNSEL Facsimile: 415.373.9435 COUNTY OF BUTTE 8 Bruce S. Alpert, SBN 075684 ate Brad J. Stephens, SBN 212246 9 Counsel for Plaintiff 25 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 10 TEL: (530) 538-7621 FAX: (530) 538-6891 11 Counsel for Defendants 12 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 14 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 15 DARWIN CRABTREE, Case No.: 2:20-cv-00675-KJM-KJN 16 Plaintiff, STIPULATION AND ORDER TO MODIFY PRE-TRIAL SCHEDULING v. ORDER 18 || COUNTY OF BUTTE, KRISTIN MCNELIS, 19 KATHARYN SCHWARTZ, EDWARD SZENDREY, JANE DOE, AND JOHN DOES 20 1-20. 21 Defendants. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 JOINT STIPULATION TO MODIFY THE PRE-TRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER TO CONTINUE FACT DISCOVERY; ORDER 1 In accordance with Local Rule 144 and Federal Rule 6, Plaintiff Darwin Crabtree (“Plaintiff”) 2 and Defendants County of Butte, Kristin McNelis, Katharyn Schwartz, and Edward Szendrey 3 (collectively “Defendants”), by and through their respective undersigned counsel, respectfully request 4 that this Court enter an Order extending by 120 days all future deadlines in the Modified Pretrial 5 Scheduling Order (the “Scheduling Order”) (dkt. 52). In support of the instant stipulated request, the 6 parties state as follows: 7 1. WHEREAS, the Court’s Initial Pretrial Scheduling Order (dkt. 36) set a date of June 21, 8 2021 for the conclusion of non-expert discovery, which this Court extended, pursuant to the stipulation 9 of the parties, to September 24, 2021 (dkt. 52); 10 2. WHEREAS, the parties have been diligent in conducting discovery since the Court 11 entered the Scheduling Order, having issued and responded to additional sets of interrogatories and 12 requests for admission, having conducted six (6) non-expert depositions, and continuing to work 13 together to resolve various written discovery issues, particularly those involving third-party discovery; 14 3. WHEREAS, due to the number of additional lay witness depositions currently set in this 15 action and a number of outstanding third-party discovery issues which the parties are continuing to 16 work through, the parties will be unable to schedule all non-expert depositions and complete third-party 17 discovery in this case before September 24, 2021, despite their diligence; 18 4. WHEREAS, the parties have agreed that they would benefit from an additional 120 days 19 to schedule the remaining non-expert depositions to be taken in this case, to continue working together 20 to resolve discovery issues pertaining to third parties, and to continue meeting and conferring about 21 written party-discovery to avoid unnecessary Court intervention; 22 5. WHEREAS, the requested 120-day extension takes into account the scheduling needs 23 of the remaining non-expert depositions (which include, at minimum, six additional depositions), the 24 need for additional written third-party discovery in advance of certain depositions, and the desire of 25 counsel to avoid filing piecemeal discovery motions, with due consideration for the holiday period from 26 Thanksgiving to New Year’s Day, during which there may be further challenges in scheduling 27 depositions, discovery conferences, and motion hearings; 28 2 1 6. WHEREAS, accordingly, the parties respectfully request that the Court enter an Order 2 extending the close of non-expert discovery to January 24, 20211; 3 7. WHEREAS, because the continuation of the non-expert discovery deadline will also 4 impact the scheduling for expert disclosures and discovery, the parties agree that the remaining 5 deadlines in the Scheduling Order should also be extended by 120 days as follows: 6 a. Expert disclosure deadline shall be extended to February 19, 2022; 7 b. Expert rebuttal discovery deadline shall be extended to March 26, 2022; 8 c. Dispositive motion deadline shall be extended to May 14, 2022 with the last day 9 to hear dispositive motions on June 25, 2022; 10 8. WHEREAS, the parties respectfully submit that good cause exists to grant their request 11 to modify the Scheduling Order because, while the parties have worked diligently to meet their 12 respective discovery needs, they have not been and will not be able to complete non-expert discovery 13 before the current deadline. See 6A Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Mary Kay Kane, Federal 14 Practice and Procedure § 1522.1 at 231 (2d ed. 1990) (“good cause” means scheduling deadlines 15 cannot be met despite party's diligence); cf. Noyes v. Kelly Servs., 488 F.3d 1163, 1174 (9th Cir. 2007) 16 (finding that district court improperly denied a Rule 16(b) motion to modify the scheduling order where 17 plaintiff diligently pursued discovery but was unable to obtain deposition testimony prior to deadline 18 to file response to summary judgment motion). 19 9. WHEREAS, the requested extension will not unduly delay this case or prejudice any 20 party, nor is it made for any improper purpose. Rather, the request is made jointly by the parties and in 21 a timely manner. For this additional reason, good cause exists to grant the requested modification to 22 the schedule. See Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1259 (9th Cir. 2010) (“requests 23 for extensions of time made before the applicable deadline has passed should ‘normally . . . be granted 24 in the absence of bad faith on the part of the party seeking relief or prejudice to the adverse party.’”) 25 26 1 January 22, 2021—the date exactly 120 days after September 24, 2021—falls on a Saturday and 27 thus, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)(1)(C), the parties request that the Court set the close of non-expert discovery on January 24, 2021, that is, “the next day [after the extension period] that is not a Saturday, 28 Sunday, or legal holiday.” 3 1 (quoting 4B Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1165 (3d ed. 2 2004)). 3 10. WHEREAS, there has been one previous time modification to these deadlines in this 4 case (dkt. 52). 5 IT IS SO STIPULATED (subject to Court Order). 6 7 Dated: September 22, 2021 PORTER | SCOTT A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 8 9 By s/ Matthew W. Gross 10 Stephen E. Horan 11 William E. Camy 12 Matthew W. Gross 13 Attorneys for Defendants COUNTY OF BUTTE, KRISTIN MCNELIS, KATHARYN SCHWARTZ 14 and EDWARD SZENDREY 15 16 Dated: September 20, 2021 EDELSON PC 17 By s/ Lily E. Hough 18 Rafey S. Balabanian 19 Todd Logan Brandt Silver-Korn 20 Lily E. Hough 21 Attorneys for Plaintiff Darwin Crabtree 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 1 2 3 ORDER 4 Upon review of the Joint Stipulation to Modify the Pre-Trial Scheduling Order and finding Good 5 || Cause therefore, the Court hereby orders that the Initial Pre-Trial Scheduling Order dated August 6, 6 || 2020 (dkt. 36) be modified as follows: 7 1. Non-expert discovery deadline shall be extended until January 24, 2021; 8 2. Expert disclosure deadline shall be extended until February 19, 2022; 9 3. Expert Rebuttal discovery shall be extended until March 26, 2022; 10 4. The last day to hear dispositive motions shall be extended to July 15, 2022; and 11 5. The parties are ordered to file a Joint Notice of Trial Readiness not later than thirty (30) days 12 after receiving this Court's ruling on the last filed dispositive motion. The parties are to set 13 forth in their Notice of Trial Readiness: the appropriateness of special procedures, whether this 14 case is related to any other case(s) on file in the Eastern District of California, the prospect for 15 settlement, their estimated trial length, any request for a jury, and their availability for trial. 16 After review of the parties’ Joint Notice of Trial Readiness, the Court will issue an order that 17 sets forth new dates for a final pretrial conference and trial. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 || DATED: September 22, 2021. 20 21 by (/ 2 CHIEF NT] ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28 Se JOINT STIPULATION TO MODIFY THE ean OER ORDER TO CONTINUE FACT DISCOVERY;