EDMUND F. BRENNAN, Magistrate Judge.
Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) and Local Rule 143, the parties, through their counsel of record, agree to a revision of the scheduling order previously set out in the joint status report filed August 19, 2014. Doc. 410. Good cause exists to grant this stipulation because plaintiff's counsel until just recently had responsibilities in two ongoing medical issues, was several times out of state regarding one of these situations, and has appointed work in which he prepares and files briefing.
A scheduling order may be modified only upon a showing of good cause and by leave of Court. Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b)(1)(A), 16(b)(4); see, e.g., Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (describing the factors a court should consider in ruling on such a motion). In considering whether a party moving for a schedule modification has good cause, the Court primarily focuses on the diligence of the party seeking the modification. Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609 (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 16 advisory committee's notes of 1983 amendment). "The district court may modify the pretrial schedule `if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.'" Id. (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 16 advisory committee notes of 1983 amendment).
Plaintiff's appointed counsel, Robert Navarro, is the power of attorney and medical advocate for a family member, Susan Richardson, who has been undergoing cancer treatment since early Summer 2014. In August, after some chemotherapy sessions, Ms. Richardson was transferred to Sierra Medical Center in El Paso, Texas, and was in a coma for several days. Counsel flew to El Paso and spent five days to attend to her situation. Ms. Richardson was unable to speak, walk or perform any ordinary tasks of normal self care. When Ms. Richardson improved slightly, she was returned to a nursing facility in Silver City, New Mexico. She continued to struggle with speech and mobility. She underwent a long recuperation in a nursing home and was required to master certain levels of mobility and strength before she could be returned home and allowed to recommence additional cancer treatment. She is currently undergoing renewed chemotherapy.
Secondly, counsel's best friend, Thomas Quinn, last year and early this year underwent treatment for parotid (salivary) gland cancer, and counsel was an integral part of his support team. In September 2014, Mr. Quinn was diagnosed as having an aggressive recurrence of that cancer. Plaintiff's counsel accompanied Mr. Quinn on two separate occasions for a total of approximately five days to the Bay Area for numerous appointments, consultations and therapy treatments, and assists Mr. Quinn with his medical care locally in Fresno. See attached letters regarding medical issues.
Additionally, because of these medical situations, appellant's state appointed appellate work was behind schedule. In the last 30 days, counsel has filed briefs in People v. Aleman, Fifth District Court of Appeal, F067671; People v. Bailey, Third District Court of Appeal, C076863; People v. Crowley, Third District Court of Appeal, C077457; People v. Williams, Fifth District Court of Appeal, F069352; People v. Williams, Fifth District Court of Appeal, F069253; and People v. Franco, Fifth District Court of Appeal.
Further, counsel has two other cases in which he represents Mr. Lopez. In Lopez v. Cook, et al., 2:0-cv-1605 KJM DAD, Ms. Esquivel is also defense counsel. Beginning in September, 2014, the parties litigated cross-motions for summary judgment which were fully briefed on October 24, and heard on November 17. See 2:0-cv-1605, Doc. 392, 398, 401, 404. The parties are currently awaiting a decision from District Judge Mueller. In addition, in Lopez v. Schwarzenegger, 2:09-cv-01760 MCE AC, plaintiff must file dispositive motions on January 15, 2015.
Because of the above-listed obligations, Plaintiff's counsel has not been able to conduct the necessary discovery in this case. The parties agree and request that the Scheduling Order be modified as follows:
The parties have agreed to meet and confer regarding the disputed discovery by December 15, 2014. If after informal discussion plaintiff believes it appropriate, he will file a notice of motion by no later than December 17, and the parties will brief the discovery motion as required under Local Rule 251. Unless the Magistrate Judge requires a hearing, the parties agree to submit the motion on the briefing. The parties have further agreed to tentatively conduct party depositions from February 2 to 13, 2015. Based on these agreements, the parties believe they will be able to complete discovery by the proposed extension dates.
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
Based on the parties' stipulation and good cause appearing, it is ordered that:
IT IS SO ORDERED.