(PC) Gomes v. Mathis

1 XAVIER BECERRA, State Bar No. 118517 Attorney General of California PETER A. MESHOT, State Bar No. 117061 Supervising Deputy Attorney General DIANA ESQUIVEL, State Bar No. 202954 Deputy Attorney General 1300 I Street, Suite 125 P.O. Box 944255 Sacramento, CA 94244-2550 Telephone: (916) 210-7320 Facsimile: (916) 322-8288 E-mail: [email protected] Attorneys for Defendant Lotersztain 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SACRAMENTO DIVISION LAWRENCE E. GOMES, No. 2:19-cv-01499 KJM-DMC Plaintiff, STIPULATION AND ORDER TO 14 MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER TO v. EXTEND DEADLINES BY SIX MONTHS DAVID M. MATHIS, et al., Action Filed: September 22, 2017 17 Defendants.

19 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) and Local Rule 143, Plaintiff pro se, Lawrence Gomes, and Defendant Lotersztain stipulate to a six-month extension of all deadlines set out in the December 16, 2019 Scheduling Order. (ECF No. 53.) An extension is needed because the parties require more time to complete discovery in light of the continuing COVID-19 pandemic and Plaintiff relocating out of state.

24 When an act must be done within a specified time, the court may, for good cause, extend the time with or without motion or notice if the court acts, or if a request is made, before the original time expires. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A). A scheduling order may be modified only upon a showing of good cause and by leave of Court. Id. 16(b)(4); see, e.g., Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (describing the factors a court should consider in ruling on such a motion). In considering whether a party moving for a schedule modification has good cause, the Court primarily focuses on the diligence of the party seeking the modification. 3 Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 advisory committee’s notes of 1983 amendment). “The district court may modify the pretrial schedule ‘if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.’” Id. (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 advisory committee notes of 1983 amendment).

7 On December 16, 2019, the Court issued a Scheduling Order requiring the parties to meet the following deadlines: 9 Exchange initial disclosures by December 20, 2019 10 Complete non-expert discovery by May 1, 2020 11 Disclose expert witnesses by June 1, 2020 12 Complete expert discovery by July 31, 2020 13 File dispositive motions by September 25, 2020 14 Good cause exists to modify the Scheduling Order. Since the Court issued the Scheduling Order, the parties have exchanged substantial documents and information with their initial disclosures and other discovery. On March 19, 2020, California Governor Newsom issued Executive Order No. N-33-20, requiring California residents to stay at home, with certain limited exceptions, due to the coronavirus pandemic. Since that time, the movement restrictions have been reduced, but not completely lifted. California and Arizona, where Plaintiff now resides, are currently experiencing a surge in coronavirus cases, such that public and health officials are recommending limited movement to reduce the risk of exposure. In addition, Plaintiff has several risk factors (age and medical condition) that require that he shelter in during the pandemic.

23 Due to the uncertainty concerning how long this national crisis would last and believing that the movement restrictions would be lifted by summer, Defendant moved to extend the scheduling deadlines by three months on April 30, 2020. (See ECF No. 55.) Plaintiff did not oppose the motion and requested a similar extension. (See ECF No. 56.) Not having received a ruling from the Court and realizing that a three-month extension would not be sufficient, defense counsel contacted the Court on July 9, 2020, inquiring about the status of the motion and informing the Court that additional time was needed in light of the continuing pandemic. The Court advised defense counsel to withdraw the pending motion and submit a new motion seeking a longer extension of the scheduling deadlines. Defense counsel contacted Plaintiff by telephone on the same day, and Plaintiff agreed that more than three months was needed to complete discovery, especially since he had moved to Arizona where the coronavirus cases are skyrocketing.

7 The parties therefore agree and request that the Court modify the Scheduling Order as follows: 9 Complete non-expert discovery by November 2, 2020 10 Disclose expert witnesses by December 1, 2020 11 Complete expert discovery by February 1, 2021 12 File dispositive motions by March 26, 2021 13 IT IS SO STIPULATED.

Dated: July 13, 2020 Respectfully submitted, XAVIER BECERRA 16 Attorney General of California PETER A. MESHOT 17 Supervising Deputy Attorney General /s/ Diana Esquivel DIANA ESQUIVEL 20 Deputy Attorney General Attorneys for Defendant Lotersztain Dated: July 13, 2020 /s/ Larry Gomes (as authorized 7/13/20) LAWRENCE E. GOMES 24 Plaintiff pro se LA2019501633 34225119.docx MADE Sh VM ITS SUING INIT IVINS UOC IO er POY ST 1 ORDER 2 Good cause appearing, the parties’ stipulated request to modify the December 16 2019 | Scheduling Order is GRANTED. The scheduling deadlines are extended as follows: 4 Complete non-expert discovery by November 2, 2020 5 Disclose expert witnesses by December 1, 2020 6 Complete expert discovery by February 1, 2021 7 File dispositive motions by March 26, 2021 8 In all other respects, the December 16, 2019 Scheduling Order (ECF No. 53) remains in full | force and effect. Plaintiff's separate motion for modification of the Scheduling Order (ECF No. 10 56) is denied as unnecessary.

11 IT IS SO ORDERED.

3 Dated: July 17, 2020 Sx<o_- 14 DENNIS M. COTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE