Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Smith v. City of Stockton, 2:15-cv-00363-KJM-AC. (2017)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20170130688 Visitors: 18
Filed: Jan. 25, 2017
Latest Update: Jan. 25, 2017
Summary: JOINT STIPULATED REQUEST & ORDER TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER KIMBERLY J. MUELLER , District Judge . Plaintiff NATHANIEL SMITH and Defendants CITY OF STOCKTON, OFFICER ROBIN HARRISON, OFFICER PATRICK MAYER, OFFICER MICHAEL PEREZ, and CHIEF OF POLICE ERIC JONES (also hereinafter collectively referred to as "Defendants"), by and through their undersigned counsel of record, and subject to the approval of the court, hereby stipulate as follows: Whereas, the parties have agreed to engage in media
More

JOINT STIPULATED REQUEST & ORDER TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER

Plaintiff NATHANIEL SMITH and Defendants CITY OF STOCKTON, OFFICER ROBIN HARRISON, OFFICER PATRICK MAYER, OFFICER MICHAEL PEREZ, and CHIEF OF POLICE ERIC JONES (also hereinafter collectively referred to as "Defendants"), by and through their undersigned counsel of record, and subject to the approval of the court, hereby stipulate as follows:

Whereas, the parties have agreed to engage in mediation in a good-faith effort to resolve the case; and

Whereas, in order to focus on trying to resolve the case, the parties have agreed to jointly request modification of the scheduling order that continues various discovery deadlines, but does not change dispositive motion and trial dates; and

Whereas, mediation is scheduled for February 17, 2017; and

Whereas, the expert disclosure deadline in this case is currently March 3, 2017, and the expert rebuttal deadline is currently March 24, 2017; and

Whereas, the parties have agreed to produce outstanding discovery by February 28, 2017, and to a tentative deposition schedule allowing for completion of outstanding depositions between February 22 and March 23, 2017; and

Whereas, when an act must be done within a specified time, the court may, for good cause, extend the time with or without motion or notice of the court acts, or if a request is made, before the original time expires. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A); see also Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc. 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992) ("The district court may modify the pretrial schedule `if it cannot be reasonably met despite the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.'");

The parties request that the Court modify the operative scheduling order in this case as follows:

Current Proposed Expert Disclosure Deadline 3/3/17 3/31/17 Expert Rebuttal Deadline 3/24/17 4/12/17 Discovery Cut-off 4/28/17 Unchanged Last Day to Hear Dispositive Motions 6/16/17 Unchanged Joint Pretrial Statement Filing Deadline 09/01/17 Unchanged Final Pretrial Conference 09/22/17 Unchanged Trial 11/06/17 Unchanged

Based on the foregoing, the parties respectfully request that the Court approve this stipulated modification of the scheduling order.

ORDER

The Court, having considered the parties' stipulation, and good cause appearing, the Joint Stipulated Request to Modify the Scheduling is GRANTED and all parties shall comply with its provisions as follows:

Deadline Expert Disclosure Deadline 3/31/17 Expert Rebuttal Deadline 4/12/17 Discovery Cut-off 4/28/17 Last Day to Hear Dispositive Motions 6/16/17 Joint Pretrial Statement Filing Deadline 09/01/17 Final Pretrial Conference 09/22/17 Trial 11/06/17

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