Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Aguirre v. State, 2:16-cv-01297-MCE-GGH. (2016)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20160923b33 Visitors: 37
Filed: Sep. 21, 2016
Latest Update: Sep. 21, 2016
Summary: STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO CONFER UNDER FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 26(F), TO OBJECT TO INITIAL PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER, AND TO TAKE HEARING ON MOTION TO DISMISS OFF CALENDAR; ORDER THEREON MORRISON C. ENGLAND, Jr. , District Judge . Plaintiffs and Defendants, through their undersigned counsel, stipulate to continue the previously agreed upon time for a conference under Federal Rule of Civil Procedures 26(f), from September 9, 2016 to October 31, 2016. The parties also stipulate to
More

STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO CONFER UNDER FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 26(F), TO OBJECT TO INITIAL PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER, AND TO TAKE HEARING ON MOTION TO DISMISS OFF CALENDAR; ORDER THEREON

Plaintiffs and Defendants, through their undersigned counsel, stipulate to continue the previously agreed upon time for a conference under Federal Rule of Civil Procedures 26(f), from September 9, 2016 to October 31, 2016. The parties also stipulate to extend the deadline for filing objections to the Initial Pretrial Scheduling Order to fourteen days after the Rule 26(f) conference.

Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) in response to Plaintiffs' Complaint. Plaintiffs will file and serve a First Amended Complaint by September 26, 2016. Defendants' responsive pleading to Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint will be filed and served by October 13, 2016.

If Plaintiffs file and serve an amended complaint by September 26, 2016, the parties stipulate to take the November 17, 2016 hearing on Defendants' motion to dismiss off calendar.

Given the anticipated amendment, the parties, claims, and defenses are uncertain at this time. This uncertainty precludes the parties from effectively preparing disclosures and discussing the discovery issues outlined in Rule 26.

The current uncertainty also prevents the parties from determining whether any variance in the deadlines outlined by the Initial Pretrial Scheduling Order (Order, June 13, 2016, ECF No. 3) are warranted. All Defendants had been served by July 18, 2016, making objections to the Initial Pretrial Scheduling Order due on September 19, 2016. The parties expect to have more clarity on potential objections after the First Amended Complaint and responsive pleading have been filed.

Additionally, Deputy Attorney General Maureen Onyeagbako will not be able to engage in a Rule 26(f) conference during the week of October 10 because she will be out of the office to prepare for trial in Bryant v. Gallagher, et al., No. 1:11-cv-00446-BAM (PC) (E.D. Cal.). The trial will begin on October 17, 2016, and is expected to last three to four days.

Based on the foregoing, the parties stipulate to a new Rule 26(f) conference date of October 31, 2016 and will file the Rule 26(f)(3) discovery plan and objections to the Initial Pretrial Scheduling Order within fourteen days of the parties' conference.

SO STIPULATED.

ORDER

In accordance with the parties' foregoing stipulation, and good cause appearing, the time for the parties to confer under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) is extended to October 31, 2016. The parties shall file the Rule 26(f)(3) discovery plan and objections to the Initial Pretrial Scheduling Order within fourteen days of the Rule 26(f) conference.

If Plaintiffs file an amended complaint by September 26, 2016, the November 17, 2016 hearing on Defendants' motion to dismiss shall be taken off calendar.

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