Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Powell v. County of Sacramento, 2:18-cv-02123-JAM-DB. (2019)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20190718855 Visitors: 11
Filed: Jul. 16, 2019
Latest Update: Jul. 16, 2019
Summary: STIPULATION TO MODIFY THE PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER; ORDER JOHN A. MENDEZ , District Judge . COMES NOW Defendants County of Sacramento, Renny Rojo, and Dominguez (collectively "Defendants") and Plaintiff Billy Powell, by and through their designated counsel, and subject to the approval of this Court, hereby stipulate and respectfully request that this Court's Pretrial Scheduling Order dated October 25, 2018 [ECF No. 10], be modified to reflect new deadlines as follows, or as to accommodate
More

STIPULATION TO MODIFY THE PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER; ORDER

COMES NOW Defendants County of Sacramento, Renny Rojo, and Dominguez (collectively "Defendants") and Plaintiff Billy Powell, by and through their designated counsel, and subject to the approval of this Court, hereby stipulate and respectfully request that this Court's Pretrial Scheduling Order dated October 25, 2018 [ECF No. 10], be modified to reflect new deadlines as follows, or as to accommodate the Court's docket, in order for the parties to participate in an early settlement conference:

Current Date New Date Expert Disclosure: Sept. 13, 2019 Feb. 13, 2020 Supplemental Expert Disclosure: Oct. 11, 2019 Mar. 11, 2020 Close of All Discovery: Nov. 8, 2019 Apr. 8, 2020 Filing of Dispositive Motions: Dec. 17, 2019 May 19, 2020 Hearing of Dispositive Motions: Jan. 14, 2020 June 16, 2020 at 1:30 p Final Pretrial Conference: Feb. 21, 2020 at 10a July 24, 2020 at 11a Trial: Mar. 30, 2020 at 9a Aug. 31, 2020 at 9a

On June 3, 2019, pursuant to stipulation of the parties, this Court set this matter for a settlement conference with Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman. The parties agreed to the next available date on the court's calendar for that conference. Based thereon, this matter is currently set for a settlement conference with Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on August 20, 2019 at 9:00 a.m.

The parties were unable to ascertain dates for the settlement conference prior to receipt of this Court's order setting the case for settlement conference. Therefore, the parties were unable to access and determine whether additional time would be required to disclose experts and complete discovery should the parties be unable to resolve this matter at the settlement conference. The parties have agreed to postpone further significant discovery efforts (e.g., depositions, IME, etc.) until completion of the settlement conference. Counsel for the parties have met and discussed the posture of this case and agree that it would be in the interests of justice and judicial economy and that good cause exists for the requested modification of the scheduling order in that allowing the parties to extend the deadlines as requested will save the parties time and expenses while they pursue potential settlement.

The parties have not previously requested a modification of the scheduling order. This request is not being made to delay, or for any other improper purpose. The parties agree that continuation of the trial date and pretrial deadlines will not prejudice any party or their counsel.

Therefore, it is hereby stipulated and agreed by and between the parties, and respectfully requested of this court, that the pretrial deadlines and trial date be modified as set forth above.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

Dated: July 16, 2019 LONGYEAR, O'DEA & LAVRA, LLP By: _________________________________ JOHN A. LAVRA AMANDA L. MCDERMOTT Attorneys for Defendants Dated: July 16, 2019 LAW OFFICES OF JOHN L. BURRIS By: _________________________________ JOHN L. BURRIS PATRICK M. BUELNA Attorneys for Plaintiff

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