KIMBERLY J. MUELLER, District Judge.
Plaintiff Lily Cervantes ("Plaintiff") and Defendant Stockton Unified School District ("Defendant"), collectively ("the Parties"), by and through their respective undersigned counsel, hereby stipulate and jointly request that the discovery deadline be extended to August 15, 2016,
The discovery deadline currently is June 28, 2016. The hearing deadline for dispositive motions currently is August 26, 2016.
There is good cause for moving these dates. Plaintiff alleges in her operative complaint that Defendant laid off plaintiff effective July 1, 2014, because of her race, sex, and/or age. Before the layoff, Plaintiff was Defendant's Executive Director of Legal Affairs. She alleges that the primary discriminatory actor was Defendant's former Superintendent, Steven Lowder. At the time of Plaintiff's layoff, Dr. Sheree Audet was the Deputy Superintendent. Dr. Audet left Defendant's employ soon after Plaintiff's layoff.
Plaintiff believes that Dr. Audet is an important witness. Defendant produced in discovery administrative claims filed by Dr. Audet against Defendant in late 2014. In those claims, Dr. Audet alleges, among other things, that Dr. Lowder told her that he wanted to "`set up' [the termination of three older Hispanic females, including Ms. Cervantes] so it would not look like discrimination on gender, race, or age, since all were Hispanic females and over the age of 50." (SUSD 007833.) Dr. Lowder denied this allegation at his deposition. Dr. Audet also alleged that she was Ms. Cervantes's direct supervisor, but that she was not "asked for [her] recommendation nor was [she] involved in th[e] decision" to layoff Ms. Cervantes. It thus came as a "complete surprise" to Dr. Audet when Dr. Lowder informed her that he had decided to eliminate Ms. Cervantes's position. (SUSD 007835.)
For several months, Plaintiff has been attempting to locate Dr. Audet for a deposition, again who does not work for Defendant. Defense counsel also explained that Defendant did not know her whereabouts, and that it could not produce for her a deposition. Plaintiff's counsel subsequently learned, earlier this year, that Dr. Audet is living and working in Abu Dhabi in the United Arab Emirates. Plaintiff's counsel also has been informed that Dr. Audet is returning to Northern California for six weeks starting in July 2016. Plaintiff's counsel and Defense counsel have been meeting and conferring about what to do, and ultimately determined that they could not arrange for her deposition in Abu Dhabi. Thus, the Parties have agreed to stipulate to extend the discovery deadline from June 28, 2016 to August 15, 2016, solely for the purpose of taking the deposition of Dr. Audet and not for any other purpose. The Parties also have agreed to work together to find an agreeable date, for each Party as well as Dr. Audet, to take the deposition, and that every effort would be made to take the deposition as soon as possible, schedules permitting, and that in no event would that deposition occur after August 15, 2016.
Defendant currently intends to file a dispositive motion in this case. Even so, the decision about whether to file a motion and the content of the motion may be dependent on what occurs at Dr. Audet's deposition. Thus, the Parties request that the hearing deadline for dispositive motions be extended to September 30, 2016. That will give Defendant sufficient time to prepare any dispositive motion after Dr. Audet's deposition, even assuming that deposition cannot be scheduled until close to August 15, 2016.
The Parties understand that the Court may wish to adjust other dates based on moving the deadlines discussed above. Thus, the Parties would be available for telephonic or in-person conference to discuss the above, if the Court believes it is necessary.
Accordingly, the Parties hereby jointly stipulate and request that the discovery deadline be extended to August 15, 2016,
Good cause appearing, the court GRANTS the parties' request to modify the Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order (ECF No. 33). To allow sufficient time for the resolution of any dispositive motions, the court further modifies the remaining dates and deadlines. Accordingly, the case schedule IS MODIFIED as follows: