Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Jeremiah v. Sutter County, 2:18-cv-00522-TLN-KJN. (2019)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20190320a26 Visitors: 7
Filed: Mar. 19, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 19, 2019
Summary: STIPULATION AND JOINT MOTION FOR STAY OF DISCOVERY TO MAY 6, 2019 IN ORDER TO DISCUSS SETTLEMENT AND ORDER THEREON TROY L. NUNLEY , District Judge . This stipulation is submitted by Plaintiffs and Defendants, through their respective counsel of record. The parties respectfully submit this stipulation to modify the case scheduling order and stay STIPULATION AND JOINT MOTION FOR STAY OF DISCOVERY AND ORDER THEREON — 1 — non-expert discovery from the date this joint motion is approved through
More

STIPULATION AND JOINT MOTION FOR STAY OF DISCOVERY TO MAY 6, 2019 IN ORDER TO DISCUSS SETTLEMENT AND ORDER THEREON

This stipulation is submitted by Plaintiffs and Defendants, through their respective counsel of record.

The parties respectfully submit this stipulation to modify the case scheduling order and stay STIPULATION AND JOINT MOTION FOR STAY OF DISCOVERY AND ORDER THEREON — 1 — non-expert discovery from the date this joint motion is approved through May 6, 2019 so that Plaintiffs and Defendant City of Yuba City can discuss settlement. Discovery is currently scheduled to close on April 1, 2019. If Plaintiffs and the City of Yuba City do not reach a settlement by May 6, 2019, non-expert discovery will recommence on May 7, 2019 and close on June 6, 2019. Since no trial has been scheduled, this request will not affect the Court's calendar.

Plaintiffs and Defendant Sutter County have reached a resolution of the claims against the County, and are in the process of finalizing that settlement in order to seek dismissal of the claims against the County. If Plaintiffs and City of Yuba City can also resolve the claims against the City of Yuba City through negotiation during this proposed stay of discovery, the entire case can be voluntarily dismissed.

This stipulated request is made pursuant to Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for good cause. Plaintiffs have diligently pursued both written discovery and depositions, and have taken six depositions and noticed three more depositions. Defendant City of Yuba City has diligently pursued written discovery, has taken one deposition, and has noticed the depositions of the ten Plaintiffs.1 There are currently eleven depositions on calendar in this matter — three to be taken by Plaintiffs and eight to be taken by Defendant City of Yuba City. All noticed depositions are currently scheduled to take place before the close of discovery on April 1, 2019. The remaining eleven depositions are scheduled to start on Tuesday, March 19, 2019 and go through March 29, 2019.

Because Plaintiffs and the City of Yuba City wish to fully explore the possibility of resolving this matter, they seek a stay so that all parties can avoid the time and expense of the remaining eleven depositions while they pursue settlement. The parties jointly seek a stay of discovery through May 6, 2019 in order to allow sufficient time for the matter to be discussed by the City of Yuba City Council at their regularly scheduled meetings. The extension of time will not affect the Court's calendar since trial has not been scheduled. The case schedule has been modified twice: first, to extend the discovery deadline to February 16, 2019 (see Doc. 30), and then to extend discovery to April 1, 2019 (see Doc. 34).

For the reasons stated above, the Parties believe that the good cause standard of Rule 16(b) is met and hereby stipulate as follows:

1. Discovery is stayed upon Order of the Court through May 6, 2019 so that Plaintiffs and the City of Yuba City may discuss settlement;

2. If Plaintiffs and the City of Yuba City do not reach a settlement by May 6, 2019, discovery will recommence on May 7, 2019 and close on June 6, 2019.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

FootNotes


1. Plaintiffs' counsel filed motions for leave to withdraw from representing two of the ten Plaintiffs due to their failure to communicate with Plaintiffs' counsel. See Doc 35 & 36. Those motions are pending.
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer