JOINT STIPULATION TO CONTINUE DISCOVERY CUT OFF DATES; [PROPOSED ORDER]

JENNIFER L. THURSTON, Magistrate Judge.

COME NOW, Plaintiff, JANE DOE, and Defendants COUNTY OF KERN and CESAR NAVEJAR, who have met and conferred through their respective attorneys of record, and now make this joint stipulated request of the Court:

REPRESENTATIONS AND JOINT STIPULATION AND REQUEST:

1. Pursuant to the Scheduling Order (Doc. No. 20) the deadline for completion of non-expert discovery is September 9, 2016 and the deadline for expert discovery is November 14, 2016. After meeting and conferring, the parties have agreed to a 60 day continuance of both deadlines for the reasons set forth below.

2. While the parties have been engaged in the timely exchange of multiple sets of written discovery requests, no depositions have yet been taken, but are in the process of being noticed. Plaintiff has noticed defendant Navajer's deposition for July 6, 2016. While defendants wish to schedule the deposition of plaintiff, there are several outstanding issues that must be resolved first.

3. Presently defendants are seeking juvenile court records concerning the plaintiff, with a hearing scheduled on the request for June 29, 2016 in the Kern County Superior Court. The acquisition of these records, to the extent allowed by the Juvenile Court, is necessary before the defense can notice and properly depose the plaintiff.

4. The parties are also engaged in the process of meeting and conferring regarding the permissible scope of questioning of the plaintiff in her deposition based upon her counsel's assertion of various rape shield laws. These issues must also be resolved before the plaintiff's deposition can be completed.

5. Defendants also anticipate the potential for a mental examination of plaintiff after the completion of her deposition, depending upon the substance of her testimony.

6. Additionally, it is anticipated that there are approximately 15 other non-expert depositions which need to be completed after the depositions of the named parties.

7. The scheduling of the foregoing discovery has also been complicated by the County's defense being recently reassigned to counsel unfamiliar with the case on June 4, 2016. While counsel is expeditiously familiarizing himself with the case, the change in counsel has caused a short delay in the development of a coordinated discovery plan with all other counsel.

8. Therefore, Plaintiff and Defendants stipulate that the Court continue the following dates and propose the following Discovery Deadlines:

The requested continuance is limited to aforementioned discovery deadlines and will not impact the settlement conference, pretrial conference or trial dates as originally set forth in the Scheduling Order.

ORDER

Good cause appearing, based upon a sufficient showing of diligence since the issuance of the scheduling report on April 5, 2016 and sufficient reason to believe the parties cannot comply with the current case schedule, the Court GRANTS the request to amend the case schedule as follows:

2. Experts SHALL be disclosed no later than November 18, 2016 and any rebuttal experts SHALL be disclosed no later than December 6, 2016;

3. Any nondispositive motions may be filed no later than January 6, 2017 and heard no later than February 3, 2017.

The Court does not contemplate that any other changes to the case schedule will be sought or granted.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

[PROPOSED] ORDER

For GOOD CAUSE shown, and based upon the mutual Stipulation of all parties to this action, the court hereby continues the following dates:

IT IS SO ORDERED.