Filed: Jan. 19, 2016
Latest Update: Jan. 19, 2016
Summary: STIPULATION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER CAROLYN K. DELANEY , Magistrate Judge . The Plaintiff Martin Gasca, by and through his attorneys, and Defendants, County of Sacramento and Deputy Nathan Burnette, by and through their attorneys, stipulate as follows: The purpose of this stipulation is to request that the court modify the existing scheduling order by extending the date for expert disclosures and rebuttal expert disclosures. Plaintiff claims that he was unlawfully battered in his home
Summary: STIPULATION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER CAROLYN K. DELANEY , Magistrate Judge . The Plaintiff Martin Gasca, by and through his attorneys, and Defendants, County of Sacramento and Deputy Nathan Burnette, by and through their attorneys, stipulate as follows: The purpose of this stipulation is to request that the court modify the existing scheduling order by extending the date for expert disclosures and rebuttal expert disclosures. Plaintiff claims that he was unlawfully battered in his home b..
More
STIPULATION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER
CAROLYN K. DELANEY, Magistrate Judge.
The Plaintiff Martin Gasca, by and through his attorneys, and Defendants, County of Sacramento and Deputy Nathan Burnette, by and through their attorneys, stipulate as follows:
The purpose of this stipulation is to request that the court modify the existing scheduling order by extending the date for expert disclosures and rebuttal expert disclosures.
Plaintiff claims that he was unlawfully battered in his home by a police officer working for the County of Sacramento in violation of state law and his civil rights pursuant to 42 USC 1983. Plaintiff further claims that Defendant County of Sacramento was negligent in the hiring, training, disciplining and supervision of said officer. Plaintiff claims these acts and omissions by defendants caused him serious and permanent injuries, emotional distress and economic damages. Defendant denies each and every claim made by Plaintiff.
The complaint was filed in Sacramento Superior Court on April 14, 2015. Defendants answered the Complaint on May 21, 2015 and removed the case to the U.S. District Court on May 22, 2015. On August 27, 2015, the parties submitted their Joint Status Report, requesting Expert Disclosures be due on September 16, 2016. However, in its Scheduling Order, the Court ordered Expert Disclosure for March 14, 2016 and Rebuttal Expert Disclosures for April 11, 2016.
The parties are actively engaged in discovery. Plaintiff has served Interrogatories, Requests for Production of Documents, and Requests for Admissions. Defendants have also served written discovery including Interrogatories, and Requests for Production of Documents. The deposition of the Plaintiff is scheduled for January 27, 2016. The deposition of Defendant Burnette and third party County witnesses are scheduled for February 19, 2016.
In light of the foregoing, the parties cannot complete discovery on the claims and defenses with sufficient remaining time for comprehensive review by an expert before the current March 14, 2016 deadline. Thus, the Parties have stipulated to extend the time for expert disclosures.
The parties stipulate to modify the scheduling order as follows:
1. Expert Disclosure — May 13, 2016
2. Rebuttal Expert Disclosure — June 10, 2016 All other dates shall remain the same.
IT IS SO STIPULATED
ORDER
Pursuant to stipulation, it is ordered that the parties exchange Expert Witness Reports by May 13, 2016 and Rebuttal Expert Witness Reports by June 10, 2016.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
