Selene Finance, LP v. County of Sacramento ( 2024 )

SHAWN M. KROGH, Bar No. 227116 MARIE C. AVERY, Bar No. 345344 2|| KROGH & DECKER, LLP 555 Capitol Mall, Suite 700 3 || Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: (916) 498-9000 4|) Facsimile: (916) 498-9005 Email: shawnkrogh@kroghdecker.com 5 marieavery@kroghdecker.com 6 JOHN B. SULLIVAN, Bar No. 238306 7|| LONG & LEVIT LLP 465 California Street, Suite 500 8 || San Francisco, California 94104 Telephone: (415) 397-2222 9|| Facsimile: (415) 397-6392 Email: jsullivan@longlevit.com 10 Attorney for Defendant MALCOLM & CISNEROS 12 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 14 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 15 16 || SELENE FINANCE LP, Case No. 2:23-cv-01124-DJC-CKD 17 Plaintiff, Assigned to District Judge Daniel J. Calabretta 18 Vv. STIPULATED MOTION TO MODIFY 19 || COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO; JIM DISCOVERY DEADLINES AND ORDER COOPER, solely in his official capacity as 20 || the SHERIFF OF SACRAMENTO COUNTY; | Complaint Filed: November 18, 2020 MALCOLM & CISNEROS, a California Law Case Removed: June 12, 2023 21 || Corporation; and DOES 1-25, Trial: January 26, 2026 22 Defendants. 23 24 25 26 27 28 G & LEVIT 1 Pursuant to Local Rules 137, 143, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 5, 16(b)(4), 83 and Judge Calabretta’s Standing Order in Civil Actions I(A), Plaintiff SELENE FINANCE 3 || LP (“Plaintiff’ or “Selene”) and Defendant MALCOLM & CISNEROS, A LAW 4|) CORPORATION (“Defendant”) (collectively, the “Parties) by and through their respective 5 || counsel, respectfully submit this stipulated motion requesting that the discovery deadlines 6 || be modified without oral argument as follows: 7 1. Fact Discovery extended from November 15, 2024 to January 17, 2025. 8 2. Expert disclosure extended from December 13, 2024 to February 21, 2025. 9 3. Rebuttal experts extended from January 10, 2025 to March 14, 2025. 10 4. Close of Expert Discovery extended from February 7, 2025 to April 11, 11 2025. 12 To support this stipulated motion, the parties provide a Joint Proposed Order, as 13 || required by Local Rule 137. 14 “[D]istrict judges have broad discretion to manage discovery and to control the course of litigation under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16.” Avila v. Willits Env 16 || Remediation Trust, 633 F.3d 828, 833 (9th Cir. 2011). In general, the pretrial scheduling order can only be modified “upon a showing of good cause.” Zivkovic v. S. Cal. Edison Co. 18 || 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 19 || F.2d 604, 608 (9th Cir. 1992)); accord Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). “The pretrial schedule mai be modified ‘if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension....” Zivkovic, 302 F.3d at 1087 (quoting Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609). 22 There is good cause to modify the non-expert and expert discovery cutoffs in this 23 || litigation. Malcolm & Cisneros did not answer the complaint until November 7, 2023. 24 || Shortly thereafter, the parties including the County of Sacramento and Jim Cooper in his 25 || official capacity as the Sheriff of Sacramento, began settlement discussions. These 26 || discussions included a January 2024 settlement conference with Magistrate Judge 27|| Jeremy D. Peterson. Following that conference, the parties to the litigation continued to 28 || refrain from discovery to discus settlement. G & LEVIT us 1 To date, these discussions have resulted in the County and Sheriff entering into a settlement agreement with Plaintiff. Plaintiff and Malcolm & Cisneros have continued to 3 || engage in settlement discussions, including a settlement call with one another last week. 4|| These discussions have narrowed the gap between the parties. 5 Although the parties have made initial disclosures and served some written 6 || discovery, they have refrained from embarking on deposition and third-party discovery as 7\| they discussed settlement. The parties anticipate beginning such discovery in the next 8 || few weeks if they cannot reach settlement. 9 The Parties will suffer substantial harm and prejudice absent a continuance. 10 || Notwithstanding the Parties’ diligent efforts, in light of ongoing settlement discussion, the current discovery cutoffs cannot reasonably be met. Accordingly, the Parties jointly 12 || request that the discovery deadlines be modified as set forth above. 13 JUDGE CALABRETTA’S CIVIL STANDING ORDER |(C) JOINT CERTIFICATION 14 Shawn M. Krogh and John B. Sullivan, respective counsel of record for the Parties pursuant to U.S.C. 28 § 1746, hereby affirm that we are over 18 years of age and are 16 || competent to make the following declaration: 17 1. Shawn M. Krogh is counsel for Plaintiff in the above-captioned action and is a 18 || partner with the law firm of Krogh & Decker LLP, attorney of record for Plaintiff. By anc through this representation, Mr. Krogh has personal knowledge of the matters set fortt herein and, if called upon to testify, has represented that he could and would testif 21 || competently thereto. 22 2. John B. Sullivan is counsel for Defendant in the above-captioned action and is < 23 || partner with the law firm of Long & Levit LLP, attorney of record for Defendant. By anc 24 || through this representation, Mr. Sullivan has personal knowledge of the matters set fortt herein and, if called upon to testify, has represented that he could and would testif 26 || competently thereto. 27 3. On April 12, 2024, the Court entered the Scheduling Order setting certain 28 || deadlines for discovery in this matter. G & LEVIT us 1 4. The Scheduling Order set fact discovery to be completed no later than Novembe 15, 2024. 3 5. The Scheduling Order set all expert discovery to be completed no later than 4|| February 7, 2025. 5 6. The Scheduling Order set all dispositive motions, except motions for 6 || continuances, temporary restraining orders, or other emergency applications, to be filed or or before May 23, 2025 and noticed for hearing before Judge Calabretta on July 10, 202% 8 || at 1:30 p.m. 9 7. The Court set the final pretrial conference for November 20, 2025 at 1:30 p.m. 10 8. The Parties have met and conferred regarding this request and have reached the 11 agreement set forth above. 12 9. In light of the above, the Parties jointly and respectfully request that the Court 13 || modify all subsequent deadlines as set forth in the Proposed Order. 14 15 Respectfully submitted, Dated: September 23, 2024 KROGH & DECKER, LLP 17 18 . /s/ Marie C. Avery 19 SHAWN M. KROGH Attorneys for Plaintiff 20 SELENE FINANCE, LP 21 Dated: September 23, 2024 LONG & LEVIT LLP 23 24 /s/ John B. Sullivan 25 JOHN B. SULLIVAN Attorneys for Defendant 26 MALCOLM & CISNEROS 27 28 G & LEVIT ue 1 ORDER 2 Having found good cause exists pursuant to FRCP 16(b)(4), the Court GRANTS 3 || the Parties’ request to modify the discovery deadlines as follows: 4 1. Fact Discovery extended from November 15, 2024 to January 17, 2025. 5 2. Expert disclosure extended from December 13, 2024 to February 21, 2025. 6 3. Rebuttal experts extended from January 10, 2025 to March 14, 2025. 7 4. Close of Expert Discovery extended from February 7, 2025 to April 11, 8 2025. 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 Dated: September 24, 2024 /s/ Daniel J. Calabretta 1B THE HONORABLE DANIEL J. CALABRETTA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 G & LEVIT us