Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

DOE v. COUNTY OF KERN, 1:13-CV-02056-AWI-JLT. (2015)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20151027837 Visitors: 11
Filed: Oct. 26, 2015
Latest Update: Oct. 26, 2015
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER (Doc. 40) JENNIFER L. THURSTON , Magistrate Judge . WHEREAS, this matter has overlapping expert witnesses, parties, witnesses, and legal issues with the case entitled Lore Kaplan vs. County of Kern, Case No. 1:14-CV-00206-AWI-JLT. WHEREAS, the deadline to disclose expert witnesses in the case of Lore Kaplan vs. County of Kern is December 7, 2015. WHEREAS, the deadline to disclose expert witnesses in this matter is November 24, 2015. THERE
More

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER

(Doc. 40)

WHEREAS, this matter has overlapping expert witnesses, parties, witnesses, and legal issues with the case entitled Lore Kaplan vs. County of Kern, Case No. 1:14-CV-00206-AWI-JLT.

WHEREAS, the deadline to disclose expert witnesses in the case of Lore Kaplan vs. County of Kern is December 7, 2015.

WHEREAS, the deadline to disclose expert witnesses in this matter is November 24, 2015.

THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by the parties, by and through their attorneys of record that the scheduled date in this matter for disclosure of expert witnesses articulated in the scheduling conference order may be modified from November 24, 2015 to December 7, 2015.

The parties all understand and agree that the proposed new dates are subject to modification by the court.

ORDER

Based upon the stipulation of the counsel, the Court GRANTS the stipulation to amend the scheduling order as follows:

1. All experts SHALL be disclosed no later than December 7, 2015. Any rebuttal experts SHALL be disclosed no later than January 4, 2016. All discovery related to experts SHALL be completed no later than February 1, 2016.

2. Absolutely no other modifications to the case schedule are authorized and no further modifications to the case schedule are contemplated. Counsel are reminded that the Court previously instructed them to complete discovery within the deadlines that were set originally. (Doc. 34) Despite this, counsel have submitted two stipulations modifying the case schedule. (Doc. 36; Doc. 40) Any further stipulations will be summarily denied absent a showing of exceptional good cause.1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

FootNotes


1. The fact that the companion case has different case deadlines would not be considered exceptional good cause to amend the case schedule any further. The cases have different deadlines because the parties requested this in their joint scheduling conference statements. (Compare Doc. 37 with Doc. 18 filed in Kaplan v. County of Kern, Case No. 1:13-cv-02056 AWI JLT.)
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