Jarboe v. City of Turlock, California ( 2022 )

1 LONGYEAR & LAVRA, LLP Van Longyear, CSB No. 84189 2 Gigi Knudtson, CSB No. 114993 3620 American River Drive, Suite 230 3 Sacramento, CA 95864 Phone: (916) 974-8500 4 Facsimile: (916) 974-8510 Email: longyear@longyearlaw.com 5 knudtson@longyearlaw.com 6 Attorneys for Defendants, CITY OF TURLOCK, 7 LAURA WILLIAMS AND SARA MIRES 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JASON JARBOE, ) Case No.: 1:21-CV-00632-DAD-SKO ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ) STIPULATION AND ORDER TO 13 v. ) VACATE OR MODIFY SCHEDULING ) ORDER TO EXTEND DISCOVERY 14 CITY OF TURLOCK, CALIFORNIA, a ) DEADLINES Municipal Corporation, LAURA WILLIAMS, ) 15 SARA MIRES, and DOES 1 through 10, ) (Doc. 16) inclusive ) 16 ) Defendants. ) 17 ) 18 Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 16(b)(1)(A) and Local Rule 143, the parties, 19 through counsel, stipulate to and hereby request a modification of this Court’s scheduling order. 20 Pursuant to the Court’s Initial Scheduling Order (ECF No. 10), the current schedule is as 21 follows: 22 • Non-Expert Discovery: May 15, 2022 23 • Expert Disclosures: June 15, 2022 24 • Rebuttal Expert Disclosures: July 1, 2022 25 • Expert Discovery: July 25, 2022 26 Non-Dispositive Motion Deadlines: 27 • Filing: August 8, 2022 28 • Hearing: September 7, 2022 1 Dispositive Motion Deadline 2 • Filing: August 22, 2022 3 The parties in this case request that the Court vacate the above deadlines in the current 4 scheduling order. 5 On or about October 21, 2020, Plaintiff, Jason Jarboe, commenced this action in the 6 Stanislaus County Superior Court of the State of California entitled Jason Jarboe v. City of 7 Turlock, et al., Stanislaus County Superior Court Case No. CV-20-004691 against Defendants 8 City of Turlock, Laura Williams, and Sara Mires. The matter was removed to Federal Court, and 9 the defendants filed their answers to the complaint on April 21, 2021. The parties’ Initial 10 Disclosures were on file by September 8, 2021. 11 Medical records were subpoenaed after receipt of the disclosures, but the production was 12 delayed in part because of the need for authorizations. Thereafter, the parties discussed dates for 13 depositions, but due to problems with scheduling the officers for testimony and due to both 14 counsel’s calendar conflicts, the depositions were not set. 15 Recently, the parties have been in discussions regarding dates for the parties’ and non- 16 party witnesses’ depositions. However, plaintiff’s counsel would like the depositions to occur in 17 person in his Modesto office, and defendant’s counsel would have to travel from Sacramento and 18 stay overnight for at least 3-4 days of depositions. This will not be feasible until mid-April due 19 to some personal matters which would interfere with out-of-town scheduling. Written discovery 20 was recently served by both parties, but responses are not yet due. 21 A scheduling order may be modified upon a showing of good cause and by leave of Court. 22 Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 6(b)(1)(A); Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 23 1992). In considering whether a party moving for a schedule modification has good cause, the 24 Court primarily focuses on the diligence of the party seeking the modification. Johnson, 975 F.2d 25 at 609. 26 In this case, both parties are seeking and have stipulated to modification of the current 27 scheduling order. Both parties have been diligent in moving this case forward; but, nevertheless, 28 it will not be possible to complete the depositions of the parties and witnesses by the current 1 deadline of May 15, 2022. In addition, it may be necessary to subpoena additional records and 2 request and exchange additional documents after the depositions occur, and the current deadline 3 will not allow for that potential discovery. 4 For these reasons, good cause exists to modify the Court’s scheduling order. The parties 5 respectfully request that the court extend the following dates 60 days as follows: 6 • Non-Expert Discovery: July 15, 2022 7 • Expert Disclosures: August 15, 2022 8 • Rebuttal Expert Disclosures: September 1, 2022 9 • Expert Discovery: September 25, 2022 10 Non-Dispositive Motion Deadlines: 11 • Filing: October 12, 2022 12 • Hearing: November 16, 2022 13 Dispositive Motion Deadline 14 • Filing: October 22, 2022 15 16 IT IS SO STIPULATED. 17 Dated: March 22, 2022 LONGYEAR & LAVRA, LLP 18 By: /s/ Gigi Knudtson 19 VAN LONGYEAR GIGI KNUDTSON 20 Attorneys for Defendants, CITY OF TURLOCK, LAURA WILLIAMS AND 21 SARA MIRES 22 23 Dated: March 22, 2022 LAW OFFICE OF CORT WIEGAND 24 25 By: /s/ Cort Wiegand [authorized on 3-22-22] CORT WIEGAND 26 Attorneys for Plaintiff 27 28 ORDER 1 2 Good cause appearing, the parties’ foregoing stipulated request to modify the Court’s 3 Scheduling Order (Doc. 16) is GRANTED, and the Scheduling Order (Doc. 10) is hereby 4 MODIFIED as follows: 5 • Non-Expert Discovery: July 15, 2022 6 • Expert Disclosures: August 15, 2022 7 8 • Rebuttal Expert Disclosures: September 1, 2022 9 • Expert Discovery: September 25, 2022 10 11 Non-Dispositive Motion Deadlines: 12 • Filing: October 12, 2022 13 • Hearing: November 16, 2022 14 Dispositive Motion Deadline 15 16 • Filing: October 22, 2022 17 • Pretrial Conference: March 27, 2023, at 2:30 PM.1 18 19 The Settlement Conference remains as previously set. (See Doc. 15.) 20 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 Dated: March 23, 2022 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . 23 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28 1 In order for the Court to have sufficient time to rule on dispositive motions, and for the parties to prepare for trial, the Pretrial Conference has been continued.