From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

R.T. v. Jones

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
Sep 2, 2015
2:15-cv-00430-GEB-KJN (E.D. Cal. Sep. 2, 2015)

Opinion

          JOHN L. BURRIS, Esq.. BENJAMIN NISENBAUM, Esq., LAW OFFICES OF JOHN L. BURRIS, Oakland, California, Attorneys for Plaintiffs.

          JOHN M. LUEBBERKE, City Attorney., Ted Wood, Deputy City Attorney, Stockton, CA, Attorneys for Defendants CITY OF STOCKTON, and ERIC JONES, JOHN GRIFFIN, JASON SHAFFER, THOMAS HESLIN, and JAMES MANOR, municipal employees.


          STIPULATION AND (PROPOSED) ORDER MODIFYING CASE SCHEDULING ORDER

          GARLAND E. BURRELL, Jr., Senior District Judge.

         STIPULATION

         On August 20, 2015, this Court issued its Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order (Document 23) (hereinafter, "scheduling order"). Though the scheduling order sets a trial date consistent with the parties' Joint Status Report filed on August 17, 2015 (Document 21) of October 18, 2016, the scheduling order requires initial expert witness disclosure requirements to be completed no later than November 16, 2015, which is approximately eleven months prior to the trial date, with rebuttal expert witness disclosures completed no later than December 16, 2015 (approximately ten months prior to the trial date). The court set all discovery cut off on March 16, 2016.

         WHEREAS, the parties have only begun fact discovery as of the date the Court issued its scheduling order.

         WHEREAS, the parties agree that conducting sufficient fact discovery for expert witnesses to render complete opinions based on all the evidence developed during fact discovery in the case is unfeasible to do by November 16, 2015. Any such expert opinions would be necessarily based on incomplete fact discovery, which would be prejudicial to each parties' expert witness opinions. Rebuttal opinions are due to be completed one month later, though fact discovery is set to remain open until March 16, 2016. Under the scheduling order issued by the Court, the parties could not reasonably rely on their expert witness opinions, since they would necessarily be based on incomplete fact discovery.

         WHEREFORE, the parties jointly stipulate and request the Court modify its case scheduling order (Document 23), to change the date of initial expert witness disclosure requirements to be completed by February 16, 2016, with rebuttal expert witness disclosure requirements one month later: March 16, 2016, with all discovery closing April 15, 2016. Since the last motion hearing date set by the Court's scheduling order is May 16, 2016 at 9:00 a.m., the proposed modification should not impact the last motion hearing date or any subsequent date set in the scheduling order.

         IT IS SO STIPULATED.

         (PROPOSED) ORDER

         Good cause shown, the parties stipulation to modify the Court's scheduling order is granted. The deadline for the parties to complete their initial expert witness disclosure requirements is modified to February 16, 2016. The deadline for the parties to complete their rebuttal expert witness disclosures is modified to April 16, 2016. The cutoff date for all discovery to be completed is modified to April 15, 2016. No other dates shall be affected by this modification.

         IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

R.T. v. Jones

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
Sep 2, 2015
2:15-cv-00430-GEB-KJN (E.D. Cal. Sep. 2, 2015)
Case details for

R.T. v. Jones

Case Details

Full title:R.T., a minor, by and through her guardian ad litem PENEUILA NUU…

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

Date published: Sep 2, 2015

Citations

2:15-cv-00430-GEB-KJN (E.D. Cal. Sep. 2, 2015)