Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

FEIGER v. SMITH, 1:14-cv-01920-DAD-EPG (PC). (2017)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20171006v02 Visitors: 21
Filed: Oct. 05, 2017
Latest Update: Oct. 05, 2017
Summary: SECOND STIPULATION TO AMEND SCHEDULING ORDER; ORDER ERICA P. GROSJEAN , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff, Robert Feiger ("Plaintiff"), and Defendants, Natalie Clark, Marlene Robicheaux-Smith, and Antoneya Graves ("Defendants," and together with Plaintiff, "the Parties"), together request that the Court amend the Scheduling Order as follows: WHEREAS, the Parties previously requested an amendment to the Scheduling Order, which request was granted on July 14, 2017 (Dkt. 92); WHEREAS, since the
More

SECOND STIPULATION TO AMEND SCHEDULING ORDER; ORDER

Plaintiff, Robert Feiger ("Plaintiff"), and Defendants, Natalie Clark, Marlene Robicheaux-Smith, and Antoneya Graves ("Defendants," and together with Plaintiff, "the Parties"), together request that the Court amend the Scheduling Order as follows:

WHEREAS, the Parties previously requested an amendment to the Scheduling Order, which request was granted on July 14, 2017 (Dkt. 92);

WHEREAS, since the initial extension of the Scheduling Order deadlines, the Parties have exchanged extensive written discovery, and the deposition of Plaintiff has been conducted, although additional time to complete the deposition will be required;

WHEREAS, as a result of the discovery undertaken, the Parties have engaged in settlement discussions and wish to fully explore and exhaust such settlement discussions before expending additional time completing discovery and consuming judicial resources;

WHEREAS, communication of settlement offers is more time consuming than is traditionally the case given the incarceration of Plaintiff, coupled with the necessary various entities required on Defendants' part to make, respond to, and where appropriate, authorize, settlement offers. Such additional time frustrates the Parties' abilities to promptly explore settlement;

WHEREAS, based on the foregoing, the Parties wish to extend the current deadlines by thirty days while they explore settlement.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES, THROUGH THEIR RESPECTIVE COUNSEL, HEREBY STIPULATE AND AGREE to amend the Scheduling Order as follows:

Event Current Date New Date Non-expert discovery cutoff November 10, 2017 December 11, 2017 Expert discovery cutoff January 31, 2018 March 2, 2018 Expert disclosures December 12, 2017 January 12, 2018 Rebuttal expert disclosures January 11, 2018 February 12, 2018 Dispositive motion filing April 11, 2018 May 11, 2018 deadline

The Parties additionally stipulate to continue the Discovery Status Conference set for October 24, 2017, to a date on or after November 27, 2017 at the Court's convenience.

All other requirements set forth in the Scheduling Order relating to the above shall remain unchanged, including the pre-trial date of and trial dates.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

ORDER

The Parties having so stipulated and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Amended Scheduling Order, dated July 14, 2017 (ECF No. 92), is amended as follows:

Event Current Date New Date Non-expert discovery cutoff November 10, 2017 December 11, 2017 Expert discovery cutoff January 31, 2018 March 2, 2018 Expert disclosures December 12, 2017 January 12, 2018 Rebuttal expert disclosures January 11, 2018 February 12, 2018 Dispositive motion filing April 11, 2018 May 11, 2018 deadline

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the telephonic Discovery Status Conference currently set for October 24, 2017 is continued to December 6, 2017, at 2:00 p.m., in Courtroom 10 before Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean. The Parties have leave to appear by phone. To join the conference, each party is directed to call the toll-free number (888) 251-2909 and use Access Code 1024453. Up until two weeks before the discovery conference, the parties may file a motion to compel further discovery responses. One week before the discovery conference, the responding party may file a response to the motion to compel. The motion should include a copy of the request(s) and any response to the request(s) at issue. Unless there is a need for discovery prior to the discovery conference, motions to compel will not be considered until the discovery conference. Motions to compel will not be permitted after the discovery conference absent good cause. The parties should be prepared to address all discovery disputes at the discovery conference.

All other requirements set forth in the Scheduling Order relating to the above shall remain unchanged, including the pre-trial and trial dates.

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