Canterberry v. Siemens Mobility, Inc. ( 2022 )

1 LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. GREGORY G. ISKANDER, Bar No. 200215 2 YESENIA GARCIA PEREZ, Bar No. 264880 Treat Towers 3 1255 Treat Boulevard, Suite 600 Walnut Creek, CA 94597 4 Telephone: 925.932.2468 Facsimile: 925.946.9809 5 Attorneys for Defendant 6 SIEMENS MOBILITY INC. 7 WEST COAST EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS, APLC RONALD L. ZAMBRANO, Bar No. 255613 8 CRYSTAL F. MOHSIN, Bar No.333299 1147 South Hope Street 9 Los Angeles, California 90015 Telephone: (213) 927-3700 10 Facsimile: (213) 927-3701 11 Attorneys for Plaintiff TOMMY CANTERBERRY 12 13 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 15 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 16 SACRAMENTO DIVISION 17 18 TOMMY CANTERBERRY, Case No. (CASE NO. 2:20-CV-02361-KJM- KJN) 19 Plaintiff, JOINT STIPULATION TO MODIFY 20 v. INITIAL SCHEDULING ORDER; ORDER 21 ACARA SOLUTIONS, INC., a New York Complaint filed: October 2, 2020 (Sacramento business organization; SIEMENS County Superior Court Case No.: 34-2020-002- 22 MOBILITY INC., a Delaware business 86414) organization; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, 23 Defendants. 24 25 26 27 28 1 Plaintiff Tommy Canterberry (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant Siemens Mobility, Inc. 2 (“Defendant”) (collectively the “Parties”), by and through their respective counsel of record, hereby 3 agree and respectfully stipulate as follows: 4 WHEREAS, Plaintiff filed his Complaint on October 13, 2020 in Sacramento County 5 Superior Court, and Defendant timely removed this matter to this Court on November 25, 2020. 6 WHEREAS, on March 26, 2021 the Parties filed their Joint Report of their Rule 26(f) 7 Conference and Proposed Discovery Plan (Dkt. 8). 8 WHEREAS, on April 8, 2021, this Court issued its Initial Scheduling Order (Dkt. 9). 9 WHEREAS, the Parties have engaged in written discovery and have agreed to pursue 10 a private mediation in hopes to reach a resolution of this matter before engaging in further discovery 11 and litigation efforts and have appointed Mark Peters as their mediator. The Parties have reserved 12 August 15, 2022 to mediate with Mr. Peters, which is after the current deadlines to complete expert 13 disclosures, exchange rebuttal expert witnesses, and complete fact discovery under the current 14 Scheduling Order. Accordingly, the Parties hereby stipulate to modify the Scheduling Order to 15 allow them the opportunity to mediate this case and potentially reach a resolution without the need to 16 conduct further discovery and litigation efforts at this time. 17 WHEREAS, good cause exists to modify the Court’s Scheduling Order as follows: 18 The district court is given broad discretion in supervising the pretrial phase of 19 litigation. . .” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir. 1992) (citation and 20 internal quotation marks omitted). “A schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the 21 judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); see e.g. Spiller v. Ella Smithers Geriatric Ctr., 919 F.2d 22 339, 343 (5th Cir. 1990) (court impliedly granted motion to modify scheduling order by allowing 23 summary judgment motion after pretrial motion cut-off date). 24 To establish “good cause,” parties seeking modification of a scheduling order must 25 generally show that, even with the exercise of due diligence, they cannot meet the order’s timetable. 26 Johnson, supra, 975 F.2d at 609; see e.g., Hood v. Hartford Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 567 F.Supp.2d 27 1221, 1224 (E.D. Cal. 2008) (granting request for modification that was promptly made when it 28 became apparent that compliance with the scheduling order was not possible). In determining “good 1 cause,” courts also consider the importance of the requested modification, the potential prejudice in 2 allowing the modification, and, conversely, whether denial of the requested modification would 3 result in prejudice. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co. v. City of El Paso, 346 F.3d 541, 546 (5th Cir. 2003) 4 (involving amendment of pleadings). 5 Here, good cause exists for a modification of the Court’s Scheduling Order given the 6 Parties’ agreement to mediate with Mark Peters on August 15, 2022. This modification to extend the 7 deadlines in the Scheduling Order would allow the Parties the opportunity to focus their resources 8 (both time and expense) on settlement as opposed to engaging in further discovery and motion work. 9 Consequently, a modification of the Scheduling Order would result in a savings of judicial resources 10 because, should the Parties’ mediation be successful, the need for any further motion work or a trial 11 in this case would be eliminated. The Parties have not previously requested a modification to the 12 Scheduling Order. 13 THEREFORE, upon good cause shown, the Parties stipulate to modify the 14 Scheduling Order as follows: 15 Current Scheduling Order Dates: 16 May 27, 2022 – Fact Discovery Cutoff 17 June 24, 2022 – Expert Discovery Cutoff 18 April 29, 2022 – Last Day to complete expert disclosures 19 May 27, 2022 – Last Day to exchange rebuttal expert witnesses 20 August 5, 2022 – Last Day to hear dispositive motions 21 Proposed New Dates: 22 October 27, 2022 – Fact Discovery Cutoff 23 December 1, 2022– Expert Discovery Cutoff 24 September 29, 2022– Last Day to complete expert disclosures 25 October 27, 2022– Last Day to exchange rebuttal expert witnesses 26 January 20, 2023 – Last Day to hear dispositive motions 27 28 1 IT IS SO STIPULATED. 2 Dated: April 25, 2022 Respectfully submitted, 3 4 /s/ CRYSTAL F. MOHSIN 5 RONALD L. ZAMBRANO CRYSTAL F. MOHSIN 6 WEST COAST EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS, APLC ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF 7 TOMMY CANTERBERRY 8 9 10 11 12 Dated: April 25, 2022 Respectfully submitted, 13 14 /s/ YESENIA GARCIA PEREZ 15 GREGORY G. ISKANDER YESENIA GARCIA PEREZ 16 LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT 17 SIEMENS MOBILITY INC. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 ORDER 2 Upon good cause shown, the court orders the Scheduling Order to me modified as 3 || follows: 4 October 27, 2022 — Fact Discovery Cutoff. 5 December 1, 2022— Expert Discovery Cutoff. 6 September 29, 2022— Last Day to complete expert disclosures. 7 October 27, 2022— Last Day to exchange rebuttal expert witnesses. 8 January 27, 2023 — Last Day to hear dispositive motions. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 || DATED: May 4, 2022. 12 B CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 JOINT STIPULATION TO MODIFY INITIAL TTT TT ING □□ DER: ARDEP 5. (CASE NO. 2:20-CV-02361-KJM-KJN)