STIPULATION TO CONTINUE SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE AND AMEND SCHEDULING ORDER BY CONTINUING DATES; DECLARATION OF COREY EVANS; ORDER

KIMBERLY J. MUELLER, District Judge.

INTRODUCTION

The parties by and through their designated counsel, pursuant to Local Rule 144(a) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6, hereby submit this Stipulation to Continue Settlement Conference and Amend Scheduling Order By Continuing Date in this matter. This is the fifth stipulation to alter the pretrial scheduling order, the last being filed on August 14, 2015. The first two stipulations requested alterations to the scheduling order so the parties could wait to conduct discovery while motion practice was completed regarding the possible bankruptcy bar to plaintiffs' claims. The bankruptcy issue was resolved in May 2015, and prior to that time, the parties had an agreement not to conduct and/or maintain any discovery. The second two stipulations requested alterations to the scheduling order so plaintiffs' counsel (husband and wife law practice) could attend to the delivery, birth, and infant care of their newborn daughter.

The parties have diligently conducted discovery and have worked cooperatively to overcome discovery disputes without involving the court. Also, the parties had a discovery dispute hearing taken off calendar when a new magistrate judge was appointed to the matter. Fortunately, the parties also resolved that discovery dispute informally. Because of the complexity of this case, the numerous witnesses and involved police personnel involved, defendants' hurdles with accessing ESI, the fact that plaintiff lives out of state and based on the discovery disputes and diligent attempts to resolve those informally, discovery is ongoing and not complete.

2. Subject to the Court's approval, the parties propose to continue the settlement conference, presently scheduled for October 17, 2016 with Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney to March 17, 2017, or another available date thereafter.

3. The proposed continuance is necessary and good cause exists for the requested stipulation. Based on the January 13, 2016 stipulation of the parties, this court continued all pretrial dates as well as trial in this matter. Trial is now scheduled for July 10, 2017, the fact discovery cutoff is November 25, 2016. The January 2016 stipulation was based largely on the birth of plaintiff's counsel's first child at the end of November 2015, and the fact that plaintiff's counsel and his wife (and law partner) would be took off work until May 2016 because the delivery was more difficult than expected, and thus the post-delivery recovery and care was more time-intensive (and lasting), than expected.

4. Since plaintiffs' counsel returned to work in May 2016, the parties have been working to resolve multiple discovery issues that have arisen. Some discovery requests and production remained outstanding for many months because the electronic data being sought presented technological hurdles that had to be overcome to permit access to certain information. Here are a few examples, although there are many outstanding discovery issues:

4. The parties agree that further discovery, including several key depositions, will enhance the prospects of resolving this case and therefore seek an additional five (5) months to conduct discovery prior to the Settlement Conference.

5. Because the parties will be completing discovery until April 2017, it will be impossible to meet the remaining dates contained within the pretrial scheduling order.

6. Based on the foregoing, the parties request that the scheduling order be adjusted as follows:

DECLARATION OF COREY EVANS

I, COREY EVANS, DECLARE:

1. I am the attorney of record for the plaintiffs in this action, and am licensed and in good standing in the State of California, and the federal district courts of the State.

2. I am a partner in the two-attorney firm of Evans & Page, the other attorney is Geneva Page, who is also my wife.

3. Based on the state of discovery, I do not believe that either party is ready to attend a settlement conference with any reasonable hope of settling. Due to plaintiff Jarreau-Griffin's residence out-of-state, and her financial position, attending a fruitless settlement conference would be a great inconvenience.

4. On November 28, 2015, Geneva delivered our first child. The delivery was more difficult than either of us was expecting, and the post-delivery recovery was also more difficult. Therefore, we returned to work in May 2016.

5. Since returning to work, we have endeavored to resolve all of our discovery disputes as expeditiously as possible, although, there has been some unavoidable delays such as the changing of magistrate judges and defendants' technological hurdles in accessing ESI.

5. If necessary, I would be happy to attend a telephonic status conference hearing to further describe the difficulty and explain why this extension is reasonable and necessary. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California and the United States, that these statements are true and correct to the best of my knowledge.

IT IS SO STIPULATED, THROUGH COUNSEL OF RECORD.

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED:

Good cause exists for granting the stipulation to move dates, and the court hereby amends the pretrial scheduling order and sets forth the following dates: