Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Henderson v. Hernandez, 3:14-cv-01857-JST. (2019)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20190809a89 Visitors: 10
Filed: Aug. 08, 2019
Latest Update: Aug. 08, 2019
Summary: STIPULATION AND MOTION TO STAY ORDER SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE FED. R. CIV. PROC. 16(B)(4); L.R. 16-2(D); L.R. 7-1; L.R. 7-12 JON S. TIGAR , District Judge . Defendants C. Hernandez, W.L. Muniz, M. Hodges and J.D. Lozano, joined by Plaintiff Johndell Henderson (the "Parties") hereby stipulate and move for the following modifications of the Case Schedule pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) and Local Rule 16-2(d), for the reasons set forth below. I. CIRCUMSTANCES CONSTITUTING G
More

STIPULATION AND MOTION TO STAY ORDER SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE

FED. R. CIV. PROC. 16(B)(4); L.R. 16-2(D); L.R. 7-1; L.R. 7-12

Defendants C. Hernandez, W.L. Muniz, M. Hodges and J.D. Lozano, joined by Plaintiff Johndell Henderson (the "Parties") hereby stipulate and move for the following modifications of the Case Schedule pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) and Local Rule 16-2(d), for the reasons set forth below.

I. CIRCUMSTANCES CONSTITUTING GOOD FAITH REASONS TO MODIFY CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER

The Parties have both expressed interest in attempting to settle the claims in this action. They seek a stay to accommodate these efforts.1 The Parties' first settlement conference occurred when the plaintiff was unrepresented.

II. PROPOSED STAY; REQUESTED SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE

The Parties hereby stipulate, and respectfully request that the Court stay the case schedule. The Parties further hereby request the Court set a Settlement Conference to assist the parties with their efforts to negotiate and settle Mr. Henderson's claims.

III. IN THE ALTERNATIVE: PROPOSED CASE MODIFICATION

In the alternative, if the Court denies the Parties' request for a stay, the Parties seek an approximately 60-day continuance2 of case deadlines to allow them to negotiate and settle the case:

Currently Proposed Event Scheduled Date Modification Close of Fact Discovery July 31, 2019 September 30, 2019 Expert Disclosures and Opening Expert Reports Due August 16, 2019 October 15, 2019 Rebuttal Expert Disclosures & Rebuttal Reports Due September 13, 2019 November 12, 2019 Expert Discovery Cut-off October 4, 2019 December 2, 2019 Summary-Judgment Deadline October 25, 2019 January 13, 2019 Pretrial Conference Statement Due January 24, 2020 April 1, 2020 Pretrial Conference January 31, 2020 at April 17, 2020 2:00 p.m. (Friday) 2:00 p.m. Trial February 24, 2020 May 4, 2020 at 8:00 a.m. (Monday) at 8:00 a.m. Dated: August 7, 2019 COZEN O'CONNOR By: /s/ Teri Mae Rutledge Michael W. Melendez Teri Mae Rutledge Attorneys for Plaintiff JOHNDELL HENDERSON Dated: August 7, 2019 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE By: /s/ Nasstaran Ruhparwar Xavier Becerra Attorney General of California William C. Kwong Supervising Deputy Attorney General Jeffrey Fisher Deputy Attorney General Nasstaran Tara Ruhparwar Deputy Attorney General Attorneys for Defendants C. HERNANDEZ; W.L. MUNIZ; M. HODGES; and J.D. LOZANO

ECF ATTESTATION

I, Teri Mae Rutledge, am the ECF User whose ID and password are being used to file this document. In compliance with Civil Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), I hereby attest that Nasstaran Tara Ruhparwar has concurred in this filing.

ORDER

Pursuant to stipulation and good cause appearing therein, the deadlines in this case are stayed pending a Settlement Conference and further order of this Court.

Such Settlement Conference will take place within 120 days of the date this order is filed, or as soon thereafter as Magistrate Judge Illman's calendar will permit. Magistrate Judge Illman will coordinate a time, place, and date for one or more settlement conferences with all interested parties or their representatives and, within fifteen days of the conclusion of all settlement proceedings, will file with the Court a report thereon.

The Clerk will send Magistrate Judge Illman a copy of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

FootNotes


1. Fact discovery is not quite complete. The final deposition in this matter, of Plaintiff, was not completed due to a mandatory inmate count at Salinas Valley State Prison while the deposition was in progress. Counsel for the defendants has estimated three hours remain for further questioning. Should the case deadlines be continued rather than stayed, the fact discovery period should remain open for the purpose of completing this final deposition.
2. The Summary Judgment deadline is expanded approximately 80 days to account for the end-of-year holiday season. All subsequent deadlines are extended approximately 70 days to better accommodate the schedule of defense counsel Nasstaran Ruhparwar, who has preplanned international travel from May 25, 2020, through June 8, 2020.
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