Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Fajardo v. City of Bakersfield, 1:16-CV-00699-JLT. (2019)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20190918745 Visitors: 6
Filed: Sep. 17, 2019
Latest Update: Sep. 17, 2019
Summary: STIPULATION TO MODIFY THE SCHEDULING ORDER (DKT. NO. 36]; [PROPOSED] ORDER THEREON [DOC. 36] JENNIFER L. THURSTON , Magistrate Judge . RECITALS 1. WHEREAS, on May 30, 2018 this Court issued its Scheduling Order [Dkt. No. 36]. 2. WHEREAS, on May 16, 2019, the Parties filed a Stipulation to Modify the Scheduling Order [Dkt. No. 39] to extend the time for expert disclosures and expert discovery cutoff and the Court issued an Order granting same on May 17, 2019 [Dkt. No. 40]. 3. WHEREA
More

STIPULATION TO MODIFY THE SCHEDULING ORDER (DKT. NO. 36]; [PROPOSED] ORDER THEREON [DOC. 36]

RECITALS

1. WHEREAS, on May 30, 2018 this Court issued its Scheduling Order [Dkt. No. 36].

2. WHEREAS, on May 16, 2019, the Parties filed a Stipulation to Modify the Scheduling Order [Dkt. No. 39] to extend the time for expert disclosures and expert discovery cutoff and the Court issued an Order granting same on May 17, 2019 [Dkt. No. 40].

3. WHEREAS, on August 21, 2019, the Parties filed a Stipulation to Modify the Scheduling Order [Dkt. No. 46] to extend the time for expert disclosures and expert discovery cutoff and the Court issued an Order granting same on August 22, 2019 [Dkt. No. 47].

4. WHEREAS, due to the number of expert witnesses in this catastrophic injury case who are dependent on one another in terms of their analysis and given the volume of materials and complicated facts of the case, the Parties require additional time to prepare their expert disclosures and conduct expert discovery and request that the deadlines be extended by two weeks as set forth in the below Stipulation.

5. WHEREAS, the requested extension on the hearing on dispositive motions is a date after the currently scheduled Pretrial Conference date of December 16, 2019. Therefore, the Parties request that the Pretrial Conference date of December 16, 2019, be continued to January 6, 2020.

6. WHEREAS, the requested extension will not affect the Trial date of February 10, 2019.

STIPULATION

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the Parties hereto through their respective attorneys of record that the following deadlines be continued as follows:

Deadline Current Date Requested Date Non-Dispositive Motions September 17, 2019 October 1, 2019 Expert Disclosures September 18, 2019 October 2, 2019 Hearing on Non-Dispositive Motions October 15, 2019 October 29, 2019 Rebuttal Expert Disclosures October 21, 2019 November 4, 2019 Dispositive Motions October 28, 2019 November 11, 2019 Expert Discovery Cutoff November 4, 2019 November 18, 2019 Hearing on Dispositive Motions December 13, 2019 December 27, 2019 Pretrial December 16, 2019 January 6, 2020 DATED: September 16, 2019 LAW OFFICES OF DALE K. GALIPO /s/ Dale K. Galipo BY: ________________________________ DALE K. GALIPO Attorney for Plaintiff DATED: September 16, 2019 CHAIN | COHN | STILES /s/ David K. Cohn BY: ________________________________ DAVID K. COHN Attorney for Plaintiff DATED: September 16, 2019 MARDEROSIAN & COHEN /s/ Michael G. Marderosian BY: ________________________________ MICHAEL G. MARDEROSIAN Attorney for Defendants

ORDER

The Court GRANTS in PART the stipulation to amend the case schedule. The Court notes there is no showing to explain the need to extend the non-dispositive motion deadlines. Also, counsel have provided insufficient time for the filing of and decision on dispositive motions and have not demonstrated that they believe that expert testimony is needed for dispositive motions. Finally, the Court is unavailable on January 6, 2020. Thus, the Court ORDERS the case schedule to be amended as follows:

1. The parties SHALL disclose experts no later than October 2, 2019 and any rebuttal experts no later than November 4, 2019;

2. All discovery of experts SHALL be completed no later than November 18, 2019;

3. The pretrial conference is CONTINUED to December 30, 2019 at 9:00 a.m.

4. In all other respects, the stipulation to amend the case schedule is DENIED.

Counsel are advised that the Court will not entertain any further requests to amend the case schedule absent a showing of extraordinary good cause which does not include any difficulty scheduling or timely completing discovery or filing motions.

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