From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Padilla v. Beard

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California, Sacramento Division
Sep 16, 2015
2:14-cv-01118 KJM-CKD (E.D. Cal. Sep. 16, 2015)

Opinion

          KAMALA D. HARRIS, Attorney General of California, CHRISTOPHER J. BECKER, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, DIANA ESQUIVEL, Deputy Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, Attorneys for Defendants Acevedo, Baer, Beard, Castro, Davey, Drew, Garcia, Gipson, Godina, Holguin, Johnson, Kaiser, LaClaire, Martinez, Overley, Pruneda, Robicheaux, Silva, Sao, Solis, Stainer, and Wagner.

          RIFKIN LAW OFFICE Lori Rifkin, Attorneys for Plaintiff,


          STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER FOR ONE-WEEK CONTINUANCE OF HEARING ON DEFENDANT BEARD'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER [L.R. 230(f)]

          CAROLYN K. DELANEY, Magistrate Judge.

         Under Local Rules 230(f) and 143, Plaintiff and Defendants, by and through their respective counsel of record, stipulate to a one-week continuance of the hearing on Defendant Beard's motion for protective order, currently scheduled to be heard on September 30, 2015 at 10 a.m. in Courtroom 24.

         Good cause exists to grant this stipulated request because counsel for the parties will be in a deposition in connection with this case on September 30. Depending on the number of matters on the Court's calendar for September 30, the hearing may delay the deposition for a lengthy period of time. Further, Plaintiff's counsel wishes to be present at the hearing on Beard's motion, but will be unable to do so because of the pending deposition. Good cause further exists because the parties have agreed to avail themselves of the Court's informal telephonic conference procedure provided by Magistrate Judge Delaney. A short continuance of the hearing will allow the parties to participate in this informal process, and potentially avoid having to pursue, and burden the Court with, a formal discovery motion.

         IT IS SO STIPULATED.

          ORDER

         Good cause appearing, the parties' stipulated request for a seven-day continuance of the hearing on Defendant Beard's motion for protective order is granted.

         The hearing scheduled in this matter for September 30, 2015 at 10 a.m. is continued to October 7, 2015 at 10 a.m. in Courtroom 24 before the undersigned.

         IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Padilla v. Beard

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California, Sacramento Division
Sep 16, 2015
2:14-cv-01118 KJM-CKD (E.D. Cal. Sep. 16, 2015)
Case details for

Padilla v. Beard

Case Details

Full title:JERMAINE PADILLA, Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY BEARD, et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California, Sacramento Division

Date published: Sep 16, 2015

Citations

2:14-cv-01118 KJM-CKD (E.D. Cal. Sep. 16, 2015)