(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 PROPOSED 14 ORDER TO EXTEND SCHEDULING v. DEADLINES TO EXTEND DEADLINES 15 BY SIXTY DAYS 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, through her attorney of record, stipulate to and request a sixty-day extension of the scheduling deadlines set out in the Court’s February 10, 2021 Order. (ECF No. 65.) This fourth request for an extension is needed because Plaintiff is currently hospitalized and the Defendant cannot take his deposition before the discovery deadline.

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 Since the Court granted the parties’ last stipulation, the parties have completed written discovery. Defense counsel received Plaintiff’s responses to the written requests. After the parties met and conferred, Plaintiff provided amended responses and responsive documents. Defense counsel noticed Plaintiff’s deposition for April 23, 2021, after finding and securing a location near Plaintiff’s residence in Phoenix, Arizona where he could appear remotely for his deposition.

12 On April 16, defense counsel called Plaintiff to confirm his deposition for the following week.

13 Plaintiff informed her that he was currently in the emergency room for symptoms related to his heart condition, but indicated that he could proceed if his medical condition improved. The parties agreed to speak the following week, and on April 22, defense counsel called Plaintiff again to confirm his deposition. Plaintiff informed defense counsel that he had been hospitalized since April 16 and could not appear for his deposition.

18 On April 27, the parties again spoke. Plaintiff was still in the hospital and did not know when he would be released. Plaintiff’s heart condition is now such that he is on the donor’s list and awaiting a transplant. The parties discussed the possibility of filing a joint motion to stay this action until Plaintiff’s medical condition permitted him to participate in the litigation. Due to the upcoming May 3 discovery deadline and Plaintiff’s inability to contribute to a motion for a stay, the parties determined it was prudent to seek another extension of the scheduling deadlines. For these reasons, good cause exists to grant this stipulated request for a sixty-day extension of the scheduling deadlines.

26 IT IS SO STIPULATED.

1 Dated: April 30, 2021 Respectfully submitted, 2 XAVIER BECERRA Attorney General of California 3 PETER A. MESHOT Supervising Deputy Attorney General 5 /s/ Diana Esquivel 6 DIANA ESQUIVEL Deputy Attorney General 7 Attorneys for Defendant Lotersztain

9 Dated: April 29, 2021 /s/ Larry Gomes (as authorized 4/29/21) 10 LAWRENCE G. GOMES Plaintiff pro se LA2019501633 35050284.docx 1 ORDER 2 Good cause appearing, the parties’ stipulated request to extend the scheduling deadlines by | sixty days is GRANTED. The scheduling deadlines are extended as follows, and the parties shall: 4 1. Complete non-expert discovery by July 5, 2021; 5 2. Disclose expert witnesses by August 2, 2021; 6 3. Complete expert discovery by October 1, 2021; and 7 4. File dispositive motions by November 29, 2021.

8 In all other respects, the December 16, 2019 Scheduling Order (ECF No. 53) remains in full | force and effect.

11 | Dated: May 6, 2021 Ssvcqo_ DENNIS M. COTA 13 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE