Filed: Aug. 03, 2017
Latest Update: Aug. 03, 2017
Summary: STIPULATION EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO DISCOVERY KIMBERLY J. MUELLER , District Judge . STIPULATION Plaintiff California River Watch ("Plaintiff") and Defendants John D. Sweeney and Point Buckler Club, LLC (also sued as Point Buckler, LLC) (collectively "Defendants") hereby stipulate as follows: 1. On March 29, 2017, Plaintiff served Defendants with (1) Plaintiff's First Requests For Admission to Defendant John Donnelly Sweeney, (2) Plaintiff's First Request For Production of Documents
Summary: STIPULATION EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO DISCOVERY KIMBERLY J. MUELLER , District Judge . STIPULATION Plaintiff California River Watch ("Plaintiff") and Defendants John D. Sweeney and Point Buckler Club, LLC (also sued as Point Buckler, LLC) (collectively "Defendants") hereby stipulate as follows: 1. On March 29, 2017, Plaintiff served Defendants with (1) Plaintiff's First Requests For Admission to Defendant John Donnelly Sweeney, (2) Plaintiff's First Request For Production of Documents a..
More
STIPULATION EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO DISCOVERY
KIMBERLY J. MUELLER, District Judge.
STIPULATION
Plaintiff California River Watch ("Plaintiff") and Defendants John D. Sweeney and Point Buckler Club, LLC (also sued as Point Buckler, LLC) (collectively "Defendants") hereby stipulate as follows:
1. On March 29, 2017, Plaintiff served Defendants with (1) Plaintiff's First Requests For Admission to Defendant John Donnelly Sweeney, (2) Plaintiff's First Request For Production of Documents and ESI to Defendant John Donnelly Sweeney, and (3) Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories to Defendant John Donnelly Sweeney.
2. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 29 provides, in pertinent part, that "Unless the court orders otherwise, the parties may stipulate that: . . . (b) other procedures governing or limiting discovery be modified—but a stipulation extending the time for any form of discovery must have court approval if it would interfere with the time set for completing discovery, for hearing a motion, or for trial."
3. On February 24, 2017, the Court took under submission Defendants' motion to dismiss, and set a case management conference for June 8, 2017.
4. On June 1, 2017, the Court vacated the June 8, 2017 case management conference and reset it to July 6, 2017.
5. On June 27, 2017, the Court vacated the July 6, 2017 case management conference and reset it to August 17, 2017.
6. Due to unavailability of counsel on August 17, parties are seeking to reschedule the case management conference.
7. In light of Defendants' pending motion to dismiss, which if granted would moot Plaintiff's discovery requests, and the rescheduled case management conference, the parties hereby stipulate to extend Defendants' time to respond to the discovery requests listed in paragraph 1 above. Defendants' time to respond is extended until eight (8) days after the case management conference.
8. This stipulation will not interfere with the time set for completing discovery, for hearing a motion, or for trial, because there are no such dates currently set.
9. In addition, Plaintiff agrees to re-notice the deposition of Defendant John Donnelly Sweeney to a date after Defendants respond to the discovery requests.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
