Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Haught v. City of Anderson, 11-cv-01653-JAM-CMK. (2015)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20151123717 Visitors: 2
Filed: Nov. 19, 2015
Latest Update: Nov. 19, 2015
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER TO MODIFY DISCOVERY DATES IN SCHEDULING ORDER JOHN A. MENDEZ , District Judge . The parties have reached a tentative settlement of this case and ask to modify the dates pertaining to discovery in the Scheduling Order pending final approval of the settlement. Plaintiff, KATRINA HAUGHT, and Defendants, THE CITY OF ANDERSON and CHIEF DALE WEBB, by and through their respective counsel of record, hereby stipulate to, and respectfully request, the Court enter an Order modif
More

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO MODIFY DISCOVERY DATES IN SCHEDULING ORDER

The parties have reached a tentative settlement of this case and ask to modify the dates pertaining to discovery in the Scheduling Order pending final approval of the settlement.

Plaintiff, KATRINA HAUGHT, and Defendants, THE CITY OF ANDERSON and CHIEF DALE WEBB, by and through their respective counsel of record, hereby stipulate to, and respectfully request, the Court enter an Order modifying the Scheduling Order as it relates to discovery deadlines and the filing of the dispositive motions.

WHEREAS:

1. The parties participated in a second mediation session on November 16, 2015, with a neutral mediator.

2. After approximately nine hours, the parties reached an agreement to resolve the entire litigation, which will result in the filing of a stipulation to dismiss with prejudice.

3. A portion of the settlement must be approved by the Board of the California Joint Powers Risk Management Association (CJPRMA) at their general meeting on December 17, 2015. The General Manager and Risk Manager of CJPRMA, along with the attorney for the Defendants, have all agreed to strongly recommend approval of the settlement agreement that was reached on November 16, 2015, and all are optimistic that the Board will approve it.

4. One of the motivating factors for both parties is a desire to stop incurring attorney's fees and costs. The current Scheduling Order would require significant fees and costs to be incurred before the Board is able to meet. These costs include revision of a dispositive motion and discovery, including experts.

5. The parties believe that a small modification of the Scheduling Order will allow the parties to avoid incurring additional fees and costs pending approval by the Board, without any change to the existing dates for the Pre-Trial Conference and Trial.

Therefore, the parties, and each of them, submit that good cause exists pursuant to F.R.C.P. § 16 to modify the Scheduling Order so that discovery, including expert witnesses, must be completed by January 4, 2016, and dispositive motions must be filed by January 12, 2016. The parties do not request any modification of the final pre-trial conference (set for March 11, 2016 at 10:00 a.m.) or the trial (set for May 9, 2016 at 9:00 a.m.)

ORDER

GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, the Scheduling Order is modified so that discovery, including discovery related to experts, must be completed by January 4, 2016, and dispositive motions must be filed by January 12, 2016.

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