STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES AND JOINT REQUEST FOR BRIEF CONTINUANCE OF THE FURTHER RULE 16 SCHEDULING CONFERENCE; [PROPOSED] ORDER

BARBARA A. McAULIFFE, Magistrate Judge.

TO THE HONORABLE COURT:

By and through their counsel of record in this action, plaintiffs PAMELA MOTLEY; ESTATE OF CINDY RAYGOZA, through its legal representative and administrator, YVETTE CALDERA; YVETTE CALDERA; VALERIE CALDERA; DANNY RICE ("Plaintiffs") and defendant CITY OF FRESNO ("City"); and OFFICERS MATTHEW COUTO (erroneously named as "MICHAEL COUTO"); BERNARD FINLEY; DERRICK JOHNSON; BRIAN LITTLE; JOSEPH SMITH; BRYON URTON (erroneously named as "BYRON URTON"); AND RYAN ENGUM (collectively herein after as the "Defendants") — the parties — hereby stipulate for the purpose of jointly requesting that the honorable Court grant a brief continuance of the currently-calendared date of the further Rule 16 scheduling conference, by about one week, in light of an unavoidable calendar conflict for Defendants' counsel.

GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT.

1. The parties met-and-conferred pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) on July 22, 2015, and filed their Rule 26(f) joint report with a proposed case management schedule on August 14, 2015. [Dkt. Doc. 22.] However, partly due to a series of judicial re-assignments for this matter, as well as pending dispositive motions, the Court did not hold any scheduling conference pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 until August 2, 2016: and then, at that conference, in light of a pending Defendants' Motion to Dismiss plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint, the Court declined to set a case management schedule, and the Court instead continued the scheduling conference to November 7, 2016. [See Dkt. Doc. 6, 6-1, 9, 12, 13, 37, 60, 64.]1

2. Then, on November 2, 2016, in light of the fact that the Court had not yet issued its ruling on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint (which had been heard but not decided on October 6, 2016, after the Court continued the originally-noticed heading date), the Court then continued the Rule 16 scheduling conference from its previously scheduled November 7, 2016 to a new date of December 12, 2016 at 9:30 a.m. [Dkt. Doc. 66, 70, 71.]

3. Defendants report that their attorneys have the following unavoidable calendar conflicts with the current Rule 16 scheduling conference: (1) Mr. Tony M. Sain must attend a post-stay status conference in federal court in downtown Los Angeles at 11:30 a.m. on December 12, 2016, with associated pre-hearing preparation and travel needs that Defendants contend is likely to preclude in-person or telephonic participation in the Rule 16 scheduling conference in this case; and (2) Ms. Mildred K. O'Linn has a mandatory settlement conference in state court set for December 12, 2016 beginning at 8:30 a.m. in downtown Los Angeles, followed by two depositions set for that same date in downtown Los Angeles, that Defendants contend is likely to preclude in-person or telephonic participation in the Rule 16 scheduling conference in this case. Plaintiffs have no information to confirm or dispute the Defendants' contentions of this paragraph; however, plaintiffs stipulate that there is Good Cause to continue the Rule 16 scheduling conference as requested, and that plaintiffs will not be prejudiced by such a continuance.

4. This Stipulation is the first request by the parties for any continuance of a hearing or Court-set deadline set in this action.

5. Accordingly, in light of all of the foregoing, and in order to facilitate the interests of all parties to this action, by and through their counsel of record in this action, the parties hereby Stipulate that Good Cause exists — and the parties respectfully request that the Court so Order — to continue the currently pending Rule 16 scheduling conference by a brief period of time (e.g., one week).

STIPULATION FOR SCHEDULING CONFERENCE CONTINUANCE.

6. Accordingly, in light of the foregoing Good Cause, the parties hereby stipulate to and jointly request that the Court issue an Order modifying the operative scheduling order(s) in this case, and the related case management dates and deadlines, along the following lines and/or in a manner comparable to the following proposed amended schedule:

7. The Rule 16 scheduling conference currently set for Monday, December 12, 2016 at 9:30 a.m. shall be continued to a new date/time of: Monday, December 19, 2016 at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom 8 before the Hon. Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe (Fresno).

8. At their discretion, counsel for the parties may attend the scheduling conference by telephone without further Order of this Court: provided that arrangements are made for such telephonic appearance with the Clerk of the Court at least two (2) court days prior to the scheduling conference.

9. This Stipulation may be signed in counterpart and a facsimile or electronic signature shall be as valid as an original signature.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

[PROPOSED] ORDER FOR CONTINUANCE OF THE FURTHER RULE 16 SCHEDULING CONFERENCE

PURSUANT TO THE STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES, and pursuant to the Court's inherent and statutory authority, including but not limited to the Court's authority under all applicable statutes and rules — including Fed. R. Civ. P. 16, 26, and 40, as well as all applicable Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and U.S. Dist. Ct., E.D. Cal. Local Rules — after due consideration of all of the relevant pleadings, papers, and records in this action; and upon such other evidence or argument as was presented to the Court; Good Cause appearing therefor, and in furtherance of the interests of justice,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Court hereby Orders that the Rule 16 scheduling conference currently set for Monday, December 12, 2016 at 9:30 a.m. is hereby continued to a new date/time of: Monday, December 19, 2016 at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom 8 before the Hon. Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe (Fresno).

2. The Court further Orders that, at their discretion, counsel for the parties may attend the aforementioned scheduling conference by telephone without further Order of this Court: provided that counsel make arrangements for such telephonic appearance with the clerk/courtroom deputy of the Court at least two (2) court days prior to such scheduling conference.

3. Nothing in this Order shall be construed as affecting, vacating, modifying, or rescinding the Court's Protective Order re Confidential Documents [Dkt. Doc. 23].

4. Parties appearing telephonically may do so with each party using the following dial-in number and passcode: dial-in number 1-877-411-9748; passcode 3190866.

IT IS SO ORDERED.