Peterson v. Nevada County, CA ( 2022 )

1/PORTER | SCOTT 2 A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION Carl L. Fessenden, SBN 161494 3 Matthew W. Gross, SBN 324007 350 University Ave., Suite 200 4 || Sacramento, California 95825 TEL: 916.929.1481 5 || FAX: 916.927.3706 6 || Attorneys for Defendants NEVADA COUNTY, NEVADA COUNTY 4 SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT and SHERIFF KEITH ROYAL 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 JOHN DAVID PETERSON, an individual, CASE NO. 2:19-cv-00949-JAM-JDP 11 Vv. STIPULATION TO MODIFY PRE- 12 TRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER; ORDER B NEVADA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, a a county government and operator of the = 14 |} NEVADA COUNTY SHERIFF’S Complaint Filed: 05/24/2019 DEPARTMENT; and the following persons ges 15 || both as individuals and in their capacity as 5 x 16 officials, employees or contractors of 5 Nevada County; SHERIFF KEITH ROYAL; 17 |jand Does 1 through 10; and CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL GROUP 18 COMPANIES, INC.; and its personnel Does 19 || 41 through 20; and THE CITY OF GRASS VALLEY, a municipality and the operator of 20 || the GRASS VALLEY POLICE DEPARTMENT; and the following person, 21 || both as an individual and in their capacity as 92 ||an employee thereof, Officer Doe 21 and Does 22 through 25, 23 Defendants. 24 / 25 26 27 28 {02739999.DOCX} STIPULATION TO MODIFY PRE-TRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER; ORDER 1 Whereas, the Court’s Initial Pretrial Scheduling Order (ECF 48) set a date of July 1, 2 2022 for the conclusion of non-expert discovery. 3 Whereas, the parties have completed discovery and expert discovery pursuant to the 4 Initial Scheduling Order, except for a dispute over a single issue regarding the scope of a 5 section of Plaintiff’s Expert Rebuttal Report, which section the Defendants want to strike; 6 Whereas, the parties met and conferred regarding the disputed section of Plaintiff’s 7 Expert Rebuttal Expert report and were unable to reach agreement; 8 Whereas, the parties then held an informal conference with Magistrate Judge Peterson 9 on June 23, 2022 regarding their differences over the Plaintiff’s Expert rebuttal Report; 10 Whereas, Magistrate Peterson stated that the Initial Scheduling Order would need to be 11 amended by the Court to allow him to hear a discovery motion under LR 251 on the disputed 12 portion of the Plaintiff’s Expert Rebuttal report 13 Whereas, the parties have met and conferred and agreed to this Stipulation requesting 14 the Court to extend the July 1, 2022 discovery cutoff date for such period of time as necessary 15 to hear a discovery motion regarding the subject dispute between the parties; 16 Whereas, Plaintiff is agreeable to such extension of the discovery cutoff date provided 17 that it does not alter the present Trial date; 18 Whereas, the requested extension will not unduly delay this case or prejudice any party, 19 nor is it made for any improper purpose. Rather, the request is made jointly by the parties and 20 in a timely manner. For this additional reason, good cause exists to grant the requested 21 modification to the schedule. See Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1259 (9th 22 Cir. 2010) (“requests for extensions of time made before the applicable deadline has passed 23 should ‘normally . . . be granted in the absence of bad faith on the part of the party seeking 24 relief or prejudice to the adverse party.’”) (quoting 4B Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, 25 Federal Practice and Procedure § 1165 (3d ed. 2004)). 26 Whereas, there have been no previous time modifications to these deadlines in this 27 case. 28 1 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties: 2 3 1. The discovery cutoff date shall be extended for so long as necessary to file and hear a 4 discovery motion under LR 251 regarding the parties’ dispute over the scope of a section 5 of Plaintiff’s Expert Rebuttal Report and to allow any additional discovery actions to 6 resolve said discovery dispute. 7 8 9 Dated: June 29, 2022 PORTER SCOTT A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 10 11 By _/s/ Matthew W. Gross______________ Carl L. Fessenden 12 Matthew W. Gross Attorneys for Defendant 13 14 Dated: June 29, 2022 ATTORNEY AT LAW 15 By _/s/ Patrick Dwyer________________________ 16 Patrick Dwyer 17 Counsel for Plaintiff 18 Dated: June 28, 2022 LAW OFFICES OF JEROME M. VARANINI 19 20 By __/s/ Jerome M. Varanini________________ 21 Jerome M. Varanini Attorneys for Defendant WELLPATH 22 MANAGEMENT, INC. 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 ORDER 2 Upon review of the Joint Stipulation to Modify the Pre-Trial Scheduling Order To 3 Continue Fact Discovery and finding Good Cause therefore, the Court hereby orders that the 4 Initial Pre-Trial Scheduling Order dated June 25, 2021 (ECF 48) be modified as follows: 5 1. Non-expert Discovery shall be extended until August 4, 2022 to permit the parties to 6 file and prosecute a discovery motion under LR 251 to resolve the issue regarding 7 Plaintiff’s Rebuttal Expert Report. 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 11 Dated: June 29, 2022 /s/ John A. Mendez 12 THE HONORABLE JOHN A. MENDEZ 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28