Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Hargrove v. City of Bakersfield, 1:17-CV-01743-JLT. (2019)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20190108722 Visitors: 9
Filed: Jan. 07, 2019
Latest Update: Jan. 07, 2019
Summary: STIPULATION TO MODIFY THE SCHEDULING ORDER [DKT. NO. 14]; ORDER DENYING STIPULATION (Doc. 31) JENNIFER L. THURSTON , Magistrate Judge . RECITALS 1. WHEREAS, on March 26, 2018, this Court issued its Scheduling Order [Dkt. No. 16]; 2. WHEREAS, the Parties require additional time is needed in order to depose additional witnesses; 3. WHEREAS, the requested extension will not in any way affect the Pretrial Conference date of September 16, 2019, or the Trial date of October 7, 2019. STIPULATI
More

STIPULATION TO MODIFY THE SCHEDULING ORDER [DKT. NO. 14]; ORDER DENYING STIPULATION (Doc. 31)

RECITALS

1. WHEREAS, on March 26, 2018, this Court issued its Scheduling Order [Dkt. No. 16];

2. WHEREAS, the Parties require additional time is needed in order to depose additional witnesses;

3. WHEREAS, the requested extension will not in any way affect the Pretrial Conference date of September 16, 2019, or the Trial date of October 7, 2019.

STIPULATION

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the Parties hereto through their respect attorneys of records that the following deadlines and hearings are requested to be continued as follows:

Deadline/Hearing CurrentDate RequestedDate Non-Expert Discovery Cutoff February 19, 2019 March 19, 2019 Expert Disclosures March 8, 2019 April 5, 2019 Rebuttal Expert Disclosures March 29, 2019 April 26, 2019 Expert Discovery Cutoff April 15, 2019 May 13, 2019 Non-Dispositive Motion Filing Deadline April 30, 2019 May 28, 2019 Deadline to Hear Non-Dispositive Motions May 28, 2019 June 25, 2019 Dispositive Motion Filing Deadline June 10, 2019 July 8, 2019 Deadline to Hear Non-Dispositive Motions July 22, 2019 August 19, 2019

ORDER

The parties have failed to demonstrate any cause let alone good cause to amend the case schedule. The offer no explanation why the needed depositions were not taken earlier or why they cannot be completed by the current discovery deadline. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609-610 (9th Cir. 1992). Thus, the stipulation is DENIED.

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