JOINT STIPULATION TO EXTEND EXPERT WITNESS DISCOVERY DEADLINE AND DISPOSITIVE MOTION FILING AND HEARING DEADLINE; [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART

(Doc. 67)

JENNIFER L. THURSTON, Magistrate Judge.

This Stipulation is entered into by and between Plaintiffs MELISSA M. NEYLON and Defendants COUNTY OF INYO; WILLIAM R. LUTZE; RALPH DOUGLAS RICHARDS; and MICHAEL DURBIN, through counsel of record. The Parties have conferred and agree to continue the expert discovery deadline for 60 days, from March 9, 2018, to May 8, 2018. The Parties further agree to extend the date to file a dispositive motion for 30 days, from April 30, 2018 to May 30, 2018 and the date for dispositive motions to be heard for 30 days, from June 11, 2018 to July 11, 2018.

The parties have good cause to request an extension for the expert discovery deadline because the parties are working cooperatively to schedule expert deposition(s) but need additional time as a result of scheduling issues involving both counsel and the experts. Therefore, all parties join in requesting an extension of the expert discovery deadline.

The parties also have good cause to extend the date to file a dispositive motion and have such motions heard because of the additional time required to complete expert deposition(s). Therefore, all parties join in requesting an extension of the date to file a dispositive motion and have such motions heard.

The parties stipulate to extend the expert discovery deadline for 60 days to May 8, 2018. The parties stipulate to extend the date to file a dispositive motion for 30 days to May 30, 2018 and the date for dispositive motions to be heard for 30 days to July 11, 2018. Trial is presently scheduled to commence on October 2, 2018.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

[PROPOSED] ORDER

The parties report that they've had difficulty scheduling depositions of their experts. They don't explain why this difficulty exists, the specific cause of the difficulty or when they discovered they would be unable to complete the expert discovery as required by the scheduling order. Notably, in their joint scheduling report, they sought only 60 days to complete expert discovery (Doc. 24 at 4) and the Court granted this request (Doc. 28 at 3). Now they seek an additional 60 days for expert discovery.

The parties propose an amended schedule but fail to provide sufficient time for Judge Ishii to decide dispositive motions (eight weeks from the filing of the motion is needed) or sufficient time between the pretrial conference and the trial (eight weeks is needed for the filing and decision on the in limine motions). Consequently, the proposed schedule is unworkable for the Court. Thus, the Court ORDERS:

IT IS SO ORDERED.