Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Beavers v. City of Turlock, 1:16-cv-01878-LJO-BAM. (2018)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20180212403 Visitors: 12
Filed: Feb. 09, 2018
Latest Update: Feb. 09, 2018
Summary: STIPULATION RE: LIMITED EXTENSION FACT DISCOVERY DEADLINE; ORDER BARBARA A. McAULIFFE , Magistrate Judge . TO THE CLERK OF THE COURT, ALL PARTIES, AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: Plaintiff RANDY BEAVERS ("Plaintiff") and Defendants CITY OF TURLOCK; GREGORY W. ROTON; DUSTIN M. FERREIRA; GABRIEL GONZALEZ; and PAUL INDERBITZEN ("Defendants") hereby respectfully request a limited continuation of the fact discovery deadline in this Case. All other case deadlines would remain the same. The fact
More

STIPULATION RE: LIMITED EXTENSION FACT DISCOVERY DEADLINE; ORDER

TO THE CLERK OF THE COURT, ALL PARTIES, AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:

Plaintiff RANDY BEAVERS ("Plaintiff") and Defendants CITY OF TURLOCK; GREGORY W. ROTON; DUSTIN M. FERREIRA; GABRIEL GONZALEZ; and PAUL INDERBITZEN ("Defendants") hereby respectfully request a limited continuation of the fact discovery deadline in this Case. All other case deadlines would remain the same.

The fact discovery deadline has never been extended. Good cause exists for this stipulation.

The current fact discovery deadline is February 16, 2018. Remaining depositions are Plaintiff and his wife, Brenda Beavers, and possibly another witness as well as Plaintiff's treating physicians.

Plaintiff responded to served written discovery on September 18, 2017. Those responses, including Requests for Production of Documents, generally included one of three answers: do not possess; will produce the document; or will meet-and-confer. No documents were included with the responses; Plaintiff proceeded in this fashion with the idea that it would be more efficient because Defendants elected to issue subpoenas for some of the same documents that had been requested, and the parties were simultaneously negotiating acceptable language for the scope of the subpoenas. Plaintiff anticipated that the subpoenas would yield complete sets of the documents.

Between September 18th and February 1st, the parties met-and-conferred about the responses. With good-faith efforts by all sides, the issue is nearly resolved. Plaintiff's current estimated date of production is February 9, 2018.

The deposition of Plaintiff and his wife had been scheduled for February 13, 2018. Both have been taken off-calendar due to the delayed document production. Defendants need sufficient time to review the documents beforehand, and Plaintiff understands this, has no objection to this, and has met-and-conferred with defense counsel to ensure arrangements are made so that counsel has sufficient time to review documents.

The parties also wish to hold-off on deposing Plaintiff's treating physicians while they explore the possibility of case resolution.

Based on the foregoing circumstances, by and through their respective counsel of record, the parties hereby stipulate and respectfully request that the Scheduling Order in this action be amended, as follows:

1. The current fact discovery deadline be extended from February 16, 2018 to April 2, 2018 for the following: the deposition of Plaintiff, the deposition of Plaintiff's wife, Brenda Beavers, the deposition of witness Sanjay Prasad, and the deposition of any of Plaintiff's treating physicians, if those depositions go forward.

2. The February 16, 2018 deadline remains for all other fact discovery.

3. All other case deadlines specified in Docket No. 13 remain unchanged.

ORDER

Upon reviewing the Stipulation, and for good cause being shown, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

1. The current fact discovery deadline be extended from February 16, 2018 to April 2, 2018 for the following: the deposition of Plaintiff, the deposition of Plaintiff's wife, Brenda Beavers, the deposition of witness Sanjay Prasad, and the deposition of any of Plaintiff's treating physicians, if those depositions go forward;

2. The February 16, 2018 deadline remains for all other fact discovery;

3. This extension of time to complete fact discovery does not alter the date of any event or deadline already fixed by the Court's scheduling order. (Doc. 13).

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