Rosemary H. Mullins v. County of Fresno ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROSEMARY HINOJOSA MULLINS, Case No. 1:21-cv-00405-ADA-SAB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER RE: STIPULATED MOTION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER 13 v. (ECF No. 34) 14 COUNTY OF FRESNO, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 A scheduling order for this matter issued on May 6, 2022. (ECF No. 25.) The scheduling 19 order was modified once on February 16, 2023. (ECF No. 30.) On April 11, 2023, this action 20 was reassigned from District Judge Anthony W. Ishii to District Judge Ana de Alba. (ECF No. 21 32.) On April 24, 2023, the newly assigned District Judge reset the pretrial conference and trial 22 dates. (ECF No. 32.) Currently before the Court is the parties’ stipulation requesting the Court 23 reset the pretrial conference and trial dates due to a scheduling conflict of counsel, as well as a 24 request to extend the discovery deadlines. The parties propose this is an appropriate time to 25 extend discovery given the necessity of changing the trial date, and based on the proffer that they 26 have completed a number of depositions, but have recently encountered multiple scheduling 27 conflicts amongst counsel and witnesses, that have impacted the ability to move into subsequent 28 phases of relevant discovery. 1 The Court finds good cause exists to grant the parties’ stipulated motion. However, the 2 Court expects this second modification to be the final extension of the discovery deadlines based 3 on the parties’ completing depositions in this matter. (See ECF No. 25 at 7 (“The parties are 4 advised that due to the impacted nature of civil cases on the district judges in the Eastern 5 District of California, Fresno Division, that stipulations to continue set dates are disfavored 6 and will not be granted absent good cause.”) (emphasis in original).) 7 Further, the parties’ requested pretrial conference and trial dates are too close in proximity 8 to the parties’ proposed dispositive motion filing deadline. The Court shall take this opportunity 9 to reset all dates in this matter, however, given the nomination of District Judge de Alba to the 10 Ninth Circuit, the parties are forewarned that it is not clear whether these pretrial conference and 11 trial dates will remain set. Nonetheless, the Court hereby sets all discovery deadlines and the trial 12 date in this matter and the parties shall presume that such trial date shall guide the parties’ 13 expectation of proceeding into trial, and the parties shall proceed through discovery under such 14 presumption. (See ECF No. 25 at 7 (“The foregoing order represents the best estimate of the 15 court and counsel as to the agenda most suitable to dispose of this case. The trial date reserved is 16 specifically reserved for this case.”).) 17 In this regard, the Court further notes that consent or declination of consent forms have 18 not been returned in this action. To consent or decline to magistrate judge jurisdiction, a party 19 may sign and file the consent form available on the Court’s website, at: 20 hhttp://www.caed.uscourts.gov/caednew/index.cfm/forms/civil/. Parties may consent, decline or 21 withhold consent without any adverse consequences, and the assigned Magistrate Judge will not 22 be informed of the individual party’s holding or withholding of consent. The Court further notes 23 that the District Judges in the Eastern District are among the busiest in the nation. (See ECF No. 24 40 entered in Case No. 1:20-cv-01069-ADA-SAB (“The parties are further advised that due to the 25 judicial resource emergency and COVID pandemic, there are more than 130 motions currently 26 under submission in Judge de Alba’s recently re-assigned caseload. The Court understands the 27 impact that such a backlog has on the parties and although the Court will continue working 28 diligently to resolve all pending motions, it may still be months before the parties’ pending 1 | motion is resolved. As such, in light of having the heaviest district court caseload in the nation, 2 | limited Court resources, and the need to prioritize criminal and older civil matters over more 3 | recently filed actions, this Court strongly encourages the parties to consent to conduct all further 4 | proceedings before a U.S. Magistrate Judge.”).)! 5 Accordingly, pursuant to the stipulation of the parties and good cause appearing, IT IS 6 | HEREBY ORDERED that the parties’ stipulated motion to modify the schedule (ECF No. 34) is 7 | GRANTED. The scheduling order is thus modified as follows: 8 1. Non-Expert Discovery Deadline: January 12, 2024; 9 2. Expert Disclosure Deadline: February 9, 2024; 10 3. Supplemental Expert Disclosure Deadline: March 9, 2024; 11 4. Expert Discovery Deadline: April 5, 2024; 12 5. Dispositive Motion Deadline: April 19, 2024; 13 6. Pretrial Conference: September 23, 2024, at 1:30 p.m., in Courtroom 1, before 14 District Judge Ana de Alba; and 15 7. Trial: December 3, 2024, at 8:30 a.m., in Courtroom 1, before District Judge 16 Ana de Alba. 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. DAM Le 19 | Dated: _May 8, 2023 _ Oe UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 ' Judicial notice may be taken “of court filings and other matters of public record.” Reyn’s Pasta Bella, LLC v. Visa 28 | USA, Inc., 442 F.3d 741, 746 n.6 (9th Cir. 2006).