STIPULATION AND (PROPOSED) ORDER THEREON MODIFYING THE JUNE 21, 2016, SCHEDULING ORDER [ECF DOC. NO. 21] TO CONTINUE THE NOVEMBER 8, 2016, MID-DISCOVERY STATUS CONFERENCE TO DECEMBER 20, 2016, DUE TO NON-RECEIPT OF NEEDED JUVENILE COURT RECORDS

JENNIFER L. THURSTON, Magistrate Judge.

WHEREAS the June 21, 2016, Scheduling Order in this case sets a Mid-Discovery Status Conference for November 8, 2016, at 9:00 a.m. before The Hon. Jennifer L. Thurston, U.S. Magistrate Judge with a Joint Mid-Discovery Status Conference Report due on November 1, 2016; and

WHEREAS the parties have each requested and have obtained an order from the Superior Court of Kern County, Juvenile Court permitting the parties to obtain copies of the Juvenile Court Records of minor D.M.; and

WHEREAS the Kern County Superior Court, Juvenile Court Records have not yet been provided to the parties by the Juvenile Court; and

WHEREAS the Juvenile Court records of minor D.M. are needed prior to the commencement of full discovery in this case;

WHEREAS the Juvenile Court records were due to counsel from the Juvenile Court on October 27, 2016, and should be received shortly, but none of the attorneys to this matter have yet received them;

THEREFORE, the parties by and through their respective counsel of record hereby stipulate to amend the June 21, 2016, Scheduling Order to continue the scheduled November 8, 2016, Mid-Discovery Status Conference with a Joint Mid-Discovery Status Conference Report due on November 1, 2016, to January 3, 2017, at 9:00 a.m. before The Hon. Jennifer L. Thurston, U.S. Magistrate Judge, with a Joint Mid-Discovery Status Conference Report due on December 27, 2016.

IT IS SO STIPULATED:

ORDER

Based upon the stipulation of counsel, the mid-discovery status conference is CONTINUED to January 6, 2016 at 8:30 a.m. No other amendments to the case schedule are authorized.

However, counsel are likely aware that it may be that the Kern County juvenile court does not release the records during the discovery period authorized in this case, either because it simply lacks the time to conduct the in camera review or because it decides not to grant the § 827 petition. Thus, they SHALL NOT assume that this Court will extend the discovery period merely because the records were not produced timely; indeed, this is quite unlikely to occur.

Furthermore, counsel are reminded that any request to amend the discovery deadlines must be supported by good cause which requires counsel to demonstrate diligence in attempting to complete discovery with the deadlines currently in place; the refusal to conduct any discovery until the records are produced would not likely demonstrate good cause. Thus, they are strongly advised not to defer their discovery efforts any further and to redouble their efforts toward completing discovery.

IT IS SO ORDERED.