Thompson v. Saukhla ( 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 Defendants Haile, Naidoo, Portugal, 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 DEADLINES FOR EXPERT 16 AND REBUTTAL DISCLOSURES 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 expert disclosure and rebuttal 23 expert disclosure dates by seven days. Good cause exists grant the stipulated request because the 24 parties require more time to disclose expert witnesses. 25 When an act must be done within a specified time, the court may, for good cause, extend 26 the time with or without motion or notice if the court acts, or if a request is made, before the 27 original time expires. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A). A scheduling order may be modified only upon 28 a showing of good cause and by leave of Court. Id. 16(b)(4); see, e.g., Johnson v. Mammoth 1 Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (describing the factors a court should consider in ruling on 2 such a motion). In considering whether a party moving for a schedule modification has good 3 cause, the Court primarily focuses on the diligence of the party seeking the modification. 4 Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 advisory committee’s notes of 1983 5 amendment). “The district court may modify the pretrial schedule ‘if it cannot reasonably be met 6 despite the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.’” Id. (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 7 advisory committee notes of 1983 amendment). 8 The current deadline to disclose expert witnesses is December 4, 2020, and the 9 rebuttal/supplemental expert disclosure is January 8, 2021. (ECF No. 73.) Despite the diligent 10 efforts of counsel for Defendants Briggs, Cortez, Galvan, Hale, and Saukhla, the Defendants will 11 not be able to close experts by the current deadline. Defendants’ expert had been deployed to 12 Afghanistan for the past several months, and just recently returned to California. Due to the 13 expert being overseas and in a different time zone, communication between Defendants’ counsel 14 and their expert was difficult and time-consuming. Nevertheless, the expert was able to 15 substantially complete his Rule 26 report despite his location. On December 3, 2020, 16 Defendants’ counsel was eventually able to speak with the expert by telephone and learned that 17 he would require a short extension to complete his Rule 26 report. Without their expert’s report, 18 Defendants cannot disclose experts by December 4. For this reason, Defendants Briggs, Cortez, 19 Galvan, Hale, and Saukhla request, and Plaintiff has no objection to, a short seven-day extension 20 of the expert-disclosure deadline. 21 Plaintiff requests, and Defendants do not object, that the corresponding 22 rebuttal/supplemental disclosure deadline be extended by seven days as well. The extension is 23 needed to ensure that the parties have sufficient time to prepare any rebuttal or supplemental 24 report they deem necessary to address the initial disclosures. These requested extensions of the 25 expert and rebuttal disclosure deadlines will not affect any other deadline in the Amended 26 Scheduling Order. 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 For these reasons, good cause exists to modify these expert-related scheduling deadlines. 2 The parties therefore agree and request that the initial disclosures of expert witnesses be extended 3 to December 11, 2020, and that rebuttal/supplemental reports be due on January 15, 2021. 4 IT IS SO STIPULATED. 5 Dated: December 3, 2020 Respectfully submitted, 6 XAVIER BECERRA Attorney General of California 7 PETER A. MESHOT Supervising Deputy Attorney General 8 9 /s/ Diana Esquivel DIANA ESQUIVEL 10 Deputy Attorney General Attorneys for Defendants Briggs, Cortez, 11 Galvan, Haile, and Saukhla 12 Dated: December 3, 2020 KING HALL CIVIL RIGHTS CLINIC 13 14 /s/ Carter C. White (as authorized 12/3/20) CARTER C. WHITE 15 Attorneys for Plaintiff Felicia Thompson 16 Dated: December 3, 2020 LONGYEAR, O’DEA & LAVRA, LLP 17 18 /s/ Van Longyear (as authorized 12/3/20) 19 VAN LONGYEAR NICOLE M. CAHILL 20 Attorneys for Defendants Naidoo and Portugal 21 SA2018302831 22 34637682.docx 23 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 The parties shall disclose expert witnesses on or before December 11, 2020. 5 | Rebuttal/supplemental expert disclosures are due no later than January 15, 2021. In all other 6 | respects, the July 21, 2020 Amended Scheduling Order remains in full force and effect. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 || Dated: December 6, 2020 ° Fens Arn 10 KENDALL J. NE thom2422 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE 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 Expert-Related Deadlines □□□□□