Owuor v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc. ( 2023 )

1 oscJulian Burns King (Bar No. 298617) julian@kingsiegel.com 2 Margaret R. Wright (Bar No. 312272) margaret@kingsiegel.com 3 KING & SIEGEL LLP 724 South Spring Street, Suite 201 4 Los Angeles, California 90014 Tel: (213) 465-4802 5 Fax: (213) 289-2815 6 Attorneys for Plaintiff HELLEN OWUOR 7 Kara L. Jassy, Bar No. 198846 8 kjassy@littler.com LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 9 633 West 5th Street, 63rd Floor Los Angeles, California 90071 10 Telephone: 213.443.4300 Fax No.: 213.443.4299 11 Nathaniel H. Jenkins, Bar No. 312067 12 njenkins@littler.com LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 13 500 Capitol Mall, Suite 2000 Sacramento, California 95814 14 Telephone: 916.830.7200 Fax No.: 916.561.0828 15 Attorneys for Defendant 16 WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC. 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 18 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 19 20 Hellen Owuor, an individual, Case No. 2:21-CV-02232-KJM-JDP 21 Plaintiff, STIPULATION TO MODIFY THE 22 SCHEDULING ORDER; ORDER v. 23 Wal-Mart Associates, Inc., a Delaware 24 corporation; and Does 1-10, inclusive, Complaint Filed: October 25, 2021 25 Defendant. 26 27 28 1 TO THE COURT, AND TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD: 2 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Plaintiff Hellen Owuor (“Plaintiff”), and Defendant Wal- 3 Mart Associates, Inc. (“Defendant”) (collectively, the “Parties”) by and through their counsel of 4 record, hereby stipulate and agree as follows: 5 WHEREAS, on June 2, 2022, this Court held a Scheduling Conference at which the 6 following dates were set: 7 Deadline to complete fact discovery: March 15, 2023; 8 Deadline to complete expert disclosures: April 7, 2023; 9 Deadline to exchange rebuttal expert witnesses: April 28, 2023; 10 Deadline to complete expert discovery: May 19, 2023 11 Deadline to hear all dispositive motions: June 23, 2023 12 See Dkt. 16. 13 WHEREAS, in June 2022, the Parties began discussing engaging in a private mediation, 14 which was eventually scheduled for February 2023; 15 WHEREAS, in light of the mediation being scheduled for February 2023, the Parties 16 mutually agreed to stay discovery, in order to focus time and resources on a potential settlement of 17 the case; 18 WHEREAS, given this mutually-agreed discovery stay, neither Party responded to written 19 discovery or took depositions of any witnesses prior to the mediation; 20 WHEREAS, the Parties engaged in private mediation on February 24, 2023; however, the 21 mediation was unsuccessful, and the Parties began to engage in written discovery efforts and 22 schedule depositions; 23 WHEREAS; in light of the deadlines in the scheduling order at the time, the Parties 24 submitted a joint stipulation and [Proposed] Order to continue the discovery deadlines on March 25 14, 2023 (at Dkt. 21); however, the Court never issued an Order on the stipulation, and instead 26 referred this matter to a settlement conference with Magistrate Judge Peterson (Dkt. 22), which has 27 since been scheduled for August 30, 2023. (Dkt. 23). 28 /// 1 WHEREAS, the Parties have diligently pursued discovery efforts (despite the discovery 2 deadlines in the current scheduling order in hopes the Court will continue same); however, one of 3 Defendant’s counsel had to take an unexpected, emergency leave of absence to care for an 4 immediate family member who had suffered a stroke, which has unfortunately caused delays in the 5 Parties’ discovery efforts and their ability to prepare dispositive motion(s); 6 WHEREAS, neither Party will be prejudiced by a continuance of the scheduling order; 7 WHEREAS, in light of the foregoing, the Parties contend that judicial economy is best 8 served if the Parties continue the current scheduling order, specifically the discovery and dispositive 9 motion deadlines, to allow the Parties a meaningful opportunity to engage in discovery prior to the 10 August 30 settlement conference, and as well as provide time to prepare dispositive motions which 11 could narrow the issues for and/or negate the need for a trial. 12 WHEREAS, good cause exists to modify the Court’s scheduling Order as follows: 13 The district court is given broad discretion in supervising the pretrial phase of litigation…” 14 Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir. 1992) (citation and internal 15 quotation marks omitted). “A schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s 16 consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); see e.g. Spiller v. Ella Smithers Geriatric Ctr., 919 F.2d 339, 17 343 (5th Cir. 1990) (court impliedly granted motion to modify scheduling order by allowing 18 summary judgment motion after pretrial motion cut-off date). To establish “good cause,” parties 19 seeking modification of a scheduling order must generally show that, even with the exercise of due 20 diligence, they cannot meet the order’s timetable. Johnson, supra, 975 F.2d at 609; see e.g., Hood 21 v. Hartford Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 567 F.Supp.2d 1221, 1224 (E.D. Cal. 2008) (granting request for 22 modification that was promptly made when it became apparent that compliance with the scheduling 23 order was not possible). In determining “good cause,” courts also consider the importance of the 24 requested modification, the potential prejudice in allowing the modification, and, conversely, 25 whether denial of the requested modification would result in prejudice. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co. 26 v. City of El Paso, 346 F.3d 541, 546 (5th Cir. 2003) (involving amendment of pleadings). Here, 27 the Parties contend that there is good cause as set forth above. 28 /// 1 NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the 2 || Parties, through their counsel of record, that the following deadlines be continued as follows: 3 Deadline to complete fact discovery: October 13, 2023; 4 Deadline to complete expert disclosures: November 3, 2023; 5 Deadline to exchange rebuttal expert witnesses: November 17, 2023; 6 Deadline to complete expert discovery: December 8, 2023; and 7 Deadline to hear all dispositive motions: January 26, 2024. 8 IT IS SO STIPULATED. 9 10 Dated: July 7, 2023 KING & SIEGEL, LLP 1] /s/ Margaret W. Right (as approved on 7/7/23) 12 JULIAN BURNS KING MARGARET W. WRIGHT 13 Attorney for Plaintiff 4 HELLEN OWUOR 15 16 Dated: July 7, 2023 LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 17 18 /s/Nathaniel H. Jenkins 19 KARA L. JASSY NATHANIEL H. JENKINS 20 Attorneys for Defendant WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC. 21 ORDER 22 23 || PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 || Dated: July 11, 2023. 25 26 CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 27 28 STIPULATION TO MODIFY THE SCHEDULING ORDER 4 2:21-CV-02232-KJM-JDP