J.A.J. v. Jimenez

1 ROB BONTA, State Bar No. 202668 Panos Lagos, Esq. (SBN 61821) Attorney General of California LAW OFFICES OF PANOS LAGOS PETER A. MESHOT, State Bar No. 117061 5032 Woodminster Lane Supervising Deputy Attorney General Oakland, CA 94602-2614 DIANA ESQUIVEL, State Bar No. 202954 Tel: 510.530.4078 Deputy Attorney General Fax: 510.530.4725 1300 I Street, Suite 125 E-mail: [email protected] P.O. Box 944255 Sacramento, CA 94244-2550 Sanjay S. Schmidt (SBN 247475) Telephone: (916) 210-7320 LAW OFFICE OF SANJAY S. SCHMIDT Facsimile: (916) 322-8288 1388 Sutter Street, Suite 810 E-mail: [email protected] San Francisco, CA 94109 7 Tel: (415) 563-8583 Attorneys for Defendant Jimenez Fax: (415) 223-9717 8 E-mail: [email protected] 9 Attorneys for Plaintiffs J. A. J. and Teresa Gonzalez-Velazquez 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 12 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 13 FRESNO DIVISION J.A.J., et al., No. 1:18-cv-01138-DAD-SKO Plaintiffs, STIPULATION AND ORDER TO 17 MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER TO v. EXTEND THE NON-EXPERT AND 18 EXPERT DISCOVERY DEADLINES EFRAIN JIMENEZ, et al., (Doc. 54) 20 Defendants. Action Filed: August 22, 2018 22 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) and Local Rule 143, the parties, through their respective counsel of record, stipulate and request to modify the April 15, 2020 and January 14, 2021 Orders (ECF Nos. 46, 48) to extend the deadlines by when non-expert and expert discovery must completed. The current deadline to complete non-expert and expert discovery is May 7, 2021. (Id.) The parties seek to continue the deadlines to June 11, 2021. Good cause exists to grant this stipulated request because, despite the parties’ diligence, they will not be able to complete fact and expert discovery by the current deadline due to the unavailability of counsel.

2 This requested modification will not affect any other scheduling deadline.

3 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. 10 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).

14 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.) 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 officials, let alone the parties and their respective counsel. As such, the Amended Scheduling Order required the parties to complete non-expert discovery by January 29, 2021 and expert discovery by May 7, 2021. (Id.) Due to the continued pandemic and resulting challenges in completing discovery, the parties subsequently requested, and the Court granted, an extension of the non-expert discovery to May 7. (ECF No. 48.)

24 The parties have diligently conducted discovery since their request to extend the fact discovery deadline. The depositions of the parties and all involved officers have been completed; the depositions of the third-party witnesses that could be located were taken. Follow-up written discovery has been propounded and answered, and additional documents have been produced.

28 The parties disclosed expert witnesses on April 7, and a rebuttal/supplemental report was timely served. The only remaining discovery is that of the expert witnesses, two family members, and potentially the Coroner and custodian of records at the Madera County Sheriff’s Department. The non-expert discovery is not expected to be time consuming and can be accomplished in two or three days. The expert depositions will be more complicated and each is expected to last a day.

5 At the time defense counsel served Defendant’s expert disclosures, she informed Plaintiffs’ counsel that the defense expert, Clarence Chapman, was available for deposition on April 20 and 21, but did not have any other availability in April and that he would not be available until the week of May 3. However, defense counsel is starting a bench trial on May 4 before Magistrate Judge Boone in the matter of Chaudhry v. Angell (E.D. Cal. No. 1:16-cv-01243 SAB); trial expected to last four to five days. Additionally, Plaintiffs’ co-counsel, Sanjay Schmidt has been unavailable due to being on medical leave. He is not expected to return to work until after May 20. (See ECF No. 53.) Mr. Schmidt is lead counsel for Plaintiffs. For these reasons, the parties will be unable to meet the May 7 deadline to complete fact and expert discovery. The parties respectfully submit that good cause exists to continue the deadlines to complete non-expert and expert discovery to June 11, 2021. The parties do not anticipate that this request will affect any other scheduling deadline.

17 IT IS SO STIPULATED.

Dated: April 29, 2021 Respectfully submitted, 20 ROB BONTA Attorney General of California 21 PETER A. MESHOT Supervising Deputy Attorney General 23 /s/ Diana Esquivel 24 DIANA ESQUIVEL Deputy Attorney General 25 Attorneys for Defendant Jimenez Dated: April 29, 2021 LAW OFFICES OF PANOS LAGOS /s/ Panos Lagos (as authorized 4/29/21) PANOS LAGOS 4 Attorneys for Plaintiffs J. A. J. and Teresa Gonzalez-Velazquez SA2018302522 35050279.docx 1 ORDER 2 Good cause appearing, the parties’ above-stipulated request to further modify the April 15, 2020 and January 14, 2021 Orders (Doc. 54) is GRANTED.

4 To accommodate the parties’ request for a continuance of the non-expert and expert discovery dates, the scheduling order (see Docs. 46, 48, 52) and deadlines are hereby CONTINUED as follows: Event Prior Date Continued Date Non-Expert Discovery May 7, 2021 June 11, 2021 Expert Disclosures April 7, 2021 April 7, 2021 Rebuttal Expert Disclosures April 23, 2021 April 23, 2021 Expert Discovery May 7, 2021 June 11, 2021 Non-Dispositive Motion Filing1 May 14, 2021 June 23, 2021 Non-Dispositive Motion Hearing June 16, 2021 July 21, 2021 Dispositive Motion Filing July 2, 2021 July 2, 2021 Dispositive Motion Hearing September 3, 2021 September 3, 2021 Settlement Conference September 9, 2021, at September 9, 2021, at 17 10:30 a.m. 10:30 a.m.

Pretrial Conference November 15, 2021, at November 15, 2021, at 2:30 p.m. 2:30 p.m.

19 Trial January 4, 2022, at 8:30 January 4, 2022, at 8:30 a.m. a.m.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Sheila K. Oberto Dated: May 3, 2021 /s/ .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Although not requested by the parties, the Court has continued the deadline for filing non-dispositive motions, and the date on which those motions will be heard, to after the close of all discovery.