J.A.J. v. Jimenez

1 Panos Lagos, Esq. / SBN 61821 LAW OFFICES OF PANOS LAGOS 5032 Woodminster Lane Oakland, CA 94602-2614 510.530.4078 510.530.4725 (FAX) E-mail: [email protected] Sanjay S. Schmidt (SBN 247475) LAW OFFICE OF SANJAY S. SCHMIDT 1388 Sutter Street, Suite 810 San Francisco, CA 94109 Tel. (415) 563-8583 Fax (415) 223-9717 E-mail: [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiffs, J. A. J., SANTANA JUAREZ JIMENEZ, and TERESA GONZALEZ-VELAZQUEZ 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 Jimenez 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 19 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA J.A.J., a minor, etc., et al., ) Case No.:1:18-cv-01138-DAD-SKO ) 21 Plaintiffs, ) STIPULATION AND ORDER TO ) FURTHER MODIFY SCHEDULING v. ) ORDER TO EXTEND THE EXPERT ) State of California Highway Patrol Officer ) DISCOVERY DEADLINE EFRAIN JIMENEZ (ID #18075), et al., ) 24 ) (Doc. 51) Defendants. ) 25 ) /// /// /// STIPULATION AND ORDER TO FURTHER M ODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER 1 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) and Local Rule 143, the parties, through their respective counsel of record, stipulate and request the modification of this Court’s March 1, 2021 Order (ECF No. 50) to further extend the deadline by when expert discovery must be completed as follows: 5 Event Date Requested Date Expert Disclosures March 31, 2021 April 7, 2021 Rebuttal Expert Disclosures April 16, 2021 April 23, 2021 8 Good cause exists to grant this stipulated request because, despite the parties’ diligence, they will not be able to disclose expert witnesses by the current deadline due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and resulting restrictions. This requested modifications will not affect any other scheduling deadline.

12 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 16 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. 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).

22 On April 5, 2019, the Court entered its initial Scheduling Order. (ECF No. 23.) Due to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the parties requested, and the Court granted, an extension of all the scheduling deadlines and trial on April 20, 2020 (ECF No. 46.), the deadline to complete non-expert discovery (ECF No. 48), and the deadline to complete expert discovery (ECF No. 50). The Amended Scheduling Order (ECF No. 46) required the parties to complete expert discovery by May 7, 2021.

27 (Id.) It should be noted that, at that time, the full scope and expected duration of the pandemic and concomitant public health measures and restrictions were unknown by public health and government STIPULATION AND ORDER TO FURTHER M ODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER officials, let alone the parties and their respective counsel. As such, the Amended Scheduling Order required the parties to complete expert discovery by May 7, 2021. (Id.) Distribution of the vaccines did not commence until recently. At the present time, it is not yet known when the pandemic-related restrictions can be lifted. Nevertheless, the parties have engaged in extensive written discovery, including initial disclosures, interrogatories, and requests for production of documents. The parties subpoenaed and obtained relevant records from third parties. Plaintiffs’ and the Guardian Ad Litem’s depositions have been taken and completed, Defendant’s deposition was taken and completed on January 22, 2021, the depositions of witnesses Rene Galindo, Julian Gonzales and Fernando Ramirez, from the Branch & Vine where the incident occurred, were taken and completed on February 4, 2021, the deposition of witness Luis Huaracha, from the Branch & Vine where the incident occurred, was taken and completed on March 17, 2021, and the depositions of three non- party CHP Officers Shandara Kensey, Isaac Martinez, and Scott Jobinger, were completed on February 25, 2021, February 26, 2021, and March 26, 2021 respectively. Despite the parties’ diligence in obtaining discovery, there is third-party discovery that still needs to be completed. The parties seek to depose additional third-party witnesses, including two additional witnesses from the Branch & Vine where the incident occurred, Decedent’s siblings, and Madera County Sheriff’s Person Most Knowledge concerning the production of a video of the shooting incident.

18 Due to the ongoing national pandemic, scheduling and taking depositions is an onerous and time-consuming task. For this reason, the parties sought and obtained this Court’s Order for more time to complete fact discovery. For these same reasons, the parties now seek this Court’s Order to extend the expert disclosure deadlines. In order for the parties’ experts to provide complete and accurate opinions, the depositions of the remaining third-party witnesses need to be completed. Good cause, therefore, exists to continue the deadline to disclose expert witnesses to April 7, 2021 and rebuttal experts to April 23, 2021.

26 IT IS SO STIPULATED.

27 /// /// STIPULATION AND ORDER TO FURTHER M ODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER 1 Respectfully submitted, Dated: March 29, 2021 LAW OFFICES OF PANOS LAGOS -and- 3 LAW OFFICE OF SANJAY S. SCHMIDT

5 /s/Panos Lagos By: Panos Lagos, Esq.

6 Attorneys for Plaintiffs, J.A.J. and Teresa Gonzalez-Velazquez Dated: March 29, 2021 XAVIER BECERRA Attorney General of California 9 PETER A. MESHOT Supervising Deputy Attorney General 11 /s/Diana Esquivel (as authorized 3/29/2021) DIANA ESQUIVEL 12 Deputy Attorney General Attorneys for Defendant Jimenez 14 ORDER 15 Good cause appearing, the parties’ above-stipulated request to further modify the April 15, 2020 Amended Scheduling Order (Doc. 51) is GRANTED.

17 The expert-related deadlines are CONTINUED as follows: 18 Event Date Expert Disclosures April 7, 2021 19 Rebuttal Expert Disclosures April 23, 2021 21 In all other respects, the April 15, 2020 Amended Scheduling Order (Doc. 46) remains in effect.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Sheila K. Oberto Dated: March 30, 2021 /s/ .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO FURTHER M ODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER