STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE DISPOSITIVE MOTION DEADLINES AND INCREASE PAGE LIMIT

KIMBERLY J. MUELLER, District Judge.

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED BY AND BETWEEN ALL PARTIES AS FOLLOWS:

Plaintiff California River Watch ("Plaintiff") and Defendant City of Vacaville ("Defendant" or "Vacaville") (collectively, the "Parties") by and through their respective attorneys of record, hereby respectfully apply to this Court for an Order, (1) continuing pre-trial deadlines set forth in this Court's First Amendment to the Scheduling Order (Dkt. No. 26), including the dispositive motion deadlines, and, (2) providing for an increase in the page limits set for motions and replies.

RECITALS

WHEREAS, Plaintiff filed this action on March 13, 2017 (Dkt. No. 1);

WHEREAS, the Joint Rule 26(f) Report was filed on June 9, 2017 (Dkt. No. 12);

WHEREAS, Defendant filed its answer on October 2, 2017 (Dkt. No. 22);

WHEREAS, The Hon. Kimberly J. Mueller set trial for June 17, 2019 and set a schedule of pretrial dates by entering a Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order on July 12, 2017 (Dkt. No. 16);

WHEREAS, the Parties made their initial disclosures on October 16, 2017 (Defendant) and October 17, 2017 (Plaintiff);

WHEREAS, the Parties jointly requested an amendment to the pre-trial deadlines set forth in the Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order (Dkt. No. 16), which the Court adopted by entering the First Amendment to the Scheduling Order Dkt. No. 26, which extended the discovery cutoff, expert disclosure deadline, expert rebuttal deadline, expert discovery cutoff, dispositive motion hearing deadline, and vacated the June 17, 2019, trial date and pre-trial dates such as the pre-trial conference;

WHEREAS, the Parties have now completed discovery including expert depositions and have worked cooperatively to ensure an efficient preparation of the case for adjudication;

WHEREAS, the Parties are in agreement that the case involves numerous legal, technical and factual issues which will require careful and thorough briefing for dispositive motions that are to be filed;

WHEREAS, expert depositions have recently been completed and Parties are still awaiting corrections, if any, by the deponents;

WHEREAS, finalization of the deposition transcripts will aid drafting the briefs of the dispositive motions;

WHEREAS, the dispositive motion hearing deadline previously proposed by the Parties was intended to avoid conflicts with the June 2019 trial date and especially the March 2019 date for the pre-trial conference, both of which have now been vacated by this Court;

WHEREAS, under the current schedule, the Parties will be required to prepare their oppositions to cross-motions for summary judgment between December 14 and December 28, 2018, during which time lead counsel for the City will be out of the country to visit family and also during which time counsel for the City's law office will have diminished staffing for the Christmas holiday and will be closed on December 25;

WHEREAS, under the current schedule, the Parties will be required to prepare their reply briefs on cross-motions for summary judgment between December 28, 2018, and January 4, 2019, and lead counsel for the City will be returning to his law office from abroad only on January 3, 2019, and counsel for the City's law office will be closed on January 1, 2019, in observance of New Year's Day;

WHEREAS, counsel for Plaintiff has diminished staffing and his own travel plans during the months of January and February;

WHEREAS, in light of the vacated trial date, the Parties mutually believe it would be beneficial and efficient to modify the current schedule to allow additional time to prepare briefing on the dispositive motions and to avoid conflicts with winter holidays and scheduled travel plans;

WHEREAS, the Parties believe it would be appropriate to set a briefing schedule that allows additional time to prepare opposition and reply papers and additional time after submission of reply papers for the Court to consider the Parties' briefing prior to hearing on the motions;

WHEREAS, the briefing schedule proposed by the Parties is intended to provide time for both Parties to adequately prepare for the dispositive motions;

WHEREAS, the Parties believe, in good faith, that the requested schedule modifications will allow this case to proceed efficiently and with a lesser burden on the Parties and the Court, while still expeditiously preparing the matter for trial;

WHEREAS, the expert testimony provided in the case has revealed a number of technical issues that would require explanations to prove/disprove in the dispositive motions;

WHEREAS, the Parties would benefit from an increase in the page limits for the dispositive filings in order to address all the technical issues raised by the experts in their depositions;

WHEREAS, the Parties respectfully submit that these facts constitute good cause for the requested extension.

STIPULATION

NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, between the Parties, subject to this Court's approval, the following:

(1) The Parties request that the following dates be modified and/or established set forth in the chart below:

and,

(2) The Parties request that the page limit be increased as follows:

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

ORDER

This Court, having received and reviewed the Stipulation of the Parties referenced immediately above, and finding good cause therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT,

(1) The extensions requested in the below chart be granted:

and,

(2) The page limits are increased as follows:

IT IS SO ORDERED.