Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

MORALES v. RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY, 1:12-CV-00742-AWI-SKO. (2012)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20121231435 Visitors: 9
Filed: Dec. 27, 2012
Latest Update: Dec. 27, 2012
Summary: STIPULATION TO AMEND SCHEDULING ORDER; ORDER Declaration of Tanya E. Moore in support of stipulation filed concurrently herewith SHEILA K. OBERTO, Magistrate Judge. WHEREAS, the Court issued a scheduling order in this action on August 31, 2012 (Doc. 12), setting the last date for completion of discovery as December 31, 2012, and a settlement conference on January 22, 2013; WHEREAS, Plaintiff, John Morales ("Plaintiff"), served interrogatories and document requests on Defendant, Ralphs Gro
More

STIPULATION TO AMEND SCHEDULING ORDER; ORDER

Declaration of Tanya E. Moore in support of stipulation filed concurrently herewith

SHEILA K. OBERTO, Magistrate Judge.

WHEREAS, the Court issued a scheduling order in this action on August 31, 2012 (Doc. 12), setting the last date for completion of discovery as December 31, 2012, and a settlement conference on January 22, 2013;

WHEREAS, Plaintiff, John Morales ("Plaintiff"), served interrogatories and document requests on Defendant, Ralphs Grocery Company ("Defendant," and together with Plaintiff, "the Parties"), on October 23, 2102 and Defendant served its written responses on November 28, 2012; the Parties met and conferred regarding Plaintiff's position that Defendant's discovery responses were untimely and deficient, and supplemental responses are now due December 28, 2012;

WHEREAS, Defendant served interrogatories and documents requests on Plaintiff on October 25, 2012 and the Parties have agreed to meet and confer regarding Defendant's position that Plaintiff's responses are deficient on January 10, 2013;

WHEREAS, Plaintiff properly noticed the deposition of Defendant for December 12, 2012; however, it was Plaintiff's position that without proper discovery responses, he could not effectively take the deposition of Defendant. Accordingly, the deposition of Defendant was suspended;

WHEREAS, the Parties have agreed to reschedule the deposition of Defendant to January 15, 2013;

WHEREAS, Defendant inquired on December 6, 2012 when Plaintiff would be available for deposition in December and was told that his deposition could not take place until January. Accordingly, the Parties have agreed that the deposition of Plaintiff will take place on February 25, 2013;

WHEREAS, Defendant is not available for the settlement conference set for January 22, 2013. The Parties have agreed to reschedule the settlement conference for February 26, 2013 and have confirmed the Court's availability for this date.

NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties hereby stipulate as follows:

1. The discovery cut-off date be amended from December 31, 2012 only to permit the depositions of Defendant on January 15, 2013 and Plaintiff on February 25, 2013 as well as the service of any agreed-upon supplemental discovery responses;

2. The settlement conference currently set for January 22, 2013 be continued to February 26, 2013;

3. No other dates set in the Court's scheduling order are intended to be amended by this stipulation.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

ORDER

The Parties having so stipulated and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AS FOLLOWS:

1. The discovery cut-off date be amended from December 31, 2012 only to permit the depositions of Defendant on January 15, 2013 and Plaintiff on February 25, 2013 as well as the service of any agreed-upon supplemental discovery responses;

2. The settlement conference currently set for January 22, 2013 be continued to February 26, 2013 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 7 before Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto;

3. No other dates set in the Court's scheduling order are modified by this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

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