Soto v. County of Sacramento

LONGYEAR & LAVRA, LLP Van Longyear, CSB No.: 84189 Nicole M. Cahill, CSB No.: 287165 3620 American River Drive, Suite 230 Sacramento, CA 95864 Phone: 916-974-8500 Facsimile: 916-974-8510 Attorneys for Defendants, County of Sacramento, Deputy Blake Grinder, Deputy Kenneth Lloyd, Deputy John Higley, Deputy Andrew Garside, Sgt. Kelley Bunn, Sgt. Gregory Johnson, Sgt. Charles Gailey and Sheriff Scott Jones Jeremy I. Lessem, Esq. SBN: 213406 Lessem, Newstat & Tooson, LLP 3450 Cahuenga Blvd W., Ste 102 Los Angeles, CA 90068 T: 818-582-3087 F: 818-484-3087 Karen C. Joynt, SBN 206332 Law Office of Karen Joynt 222 S. Lake Ave., Ste. 300 Pasadena, CA 91101 Attorneys for Plaintiffs XAVIER BECERRA, State Bar No. 118517 Attorney General of California ALBERTO L. GONZALEZ, State Bar No. 117605 Supervising Deputy Attorney General MATTHEW W. ROMAN, State Bar No. 267717 Deputy Attorney General JOHN C. BRIDGES, State Bar No. 248553 Deputy Attorney General 1300 I Street, Suite 125 P.O. Box 944255 Sacramento, CA 94244-2550 Telephone: (916)210-7529 Fax: (916)322-8288 Attorneys for Defendant California Highway Patrol Officer Greg White PORTER SCOTT A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION Carl L. Fessenden, SBN 161494 Suli A. Mastorakos, SBN 330383 350 University Ave., Suite 200 Sacramento, CA 95825 TEL: 916.929.1481 FAX: 916.927.3706 Attorneys for Defendant Patricia Robinson-Hard

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SACRAMENTO DIVISION SILVIA SOTO, an individual, LATANYA ) Case No.: 2:19-cv-00910-TLN-DB ANDREWS, an individual, MARCELO M.S., ) minor, and MARLENIE M.S., a minor, by and ) STIPULATED REQUEST TO MODIFY through their guardian ad litem, SILVIA ) SCHEDULING ORDER TO EXTEND SOTO, in each case both individually and as ) THE DISPOSITIVE MOTION DEADLINE successors-in-interest to the ESTATE OF ) AND ORDER MARSHALL MILES, Deceased, )

) Plaintiffs )

) v. )

) COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, BLAKE ) GRINDER, KENNETH LLOYD, JOHN ) HIGLEY, ISRAEL HERNANDEZ, FNU ) JENNINGS, ANDREW GARSIDE, GREG ) WHITE, KELLEY BUNN, CHARLES ) GAILEY, SCOTT JONES and DOES 1 ) through 100, inclusive, )

) Defendants. )

) Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 16(b)(1)(A) and Local Rule 143, the parties, through counsel, stipulate to and hereby request a modification of this Court’s scheduling order. Pursuant to the Court’s Initial Scheduling Order (ECF No. 4), the current schedule requires dispositive motions to be filed no later than July 7, 2020. Expert discovery is required to be completed “in a timely manner in order to comply with the Court’s deadline for filing dispositive motions.” (ECF No. 4.)

The parties in this case previously requested to modify the scheduling order on December 30, 2020 to allow for additional time to conduct fact discovery. (ECF No. 53.) On February 1, 2021, the parties then sought an extension of one month for initial expert disclosures and supplemental expert disclosures. (ECF No. 55.) Plaintiffs sought to modify the scheduling order on the limited issue of obtaining samples from the Sacramento County Coroner’s Office on February 23, 2021. (ECF No. 58.) The motion has not yet been ruled on.

A scheduling order may only be modified upon a showing of good cause and by leave of Court. Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 6(b)(1)(A); Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). 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.

The parties have worked diligently in litigating this matter. The parties have conducted numerous depositions in addition to multiple sets of written discovery. The parties have also exchanged expert reports and are conferring regarding depositions of experts. The parties also attended a mediation on December 16, 2020. The parties continue to engage in settlement discussions and have scheduled another half-day mediation for May 26, 2021. In order to accommodate expert depositions and the currently scheduled mediation, the parties request the dispositive motion deadline be moved from July 7, 2021 to August 11, 2021. As no trial date is set, this extension will not delay trial. The extension will allow sufficient time for the mediation to go forward, expert depositions to be taken, and transcripts of those depositions received in order to prepare dispositive motions.

For these reasons, good cause exists to modify the dispositive motion deadline. The parties therefore agree and request the dispositive motion deadline be extended to August 11, 2021.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

Dated: May 5, 2021 LONGYEAR & LAVRA, LLP

By: /s/ Nicole M. Cahill

VAN LONGYEAR NICOLE M. CAHILL

Attorneys for Defendants,

County of Sacramento, Deputy Blake Grinder, Deputy Kenneth Lloyd, Deputy John Higley, Deputy Israel Hernandez, Deputy Jacqueline Jennings, Deputy Andrew Garside, Sgt. Kelley Bunn, Sgt. Charles Gailey and Sheriff Scott Jones

Dated: May 5, 2021 LESSEM, NEWSTAT & TOOSON, LLP

By: /s/ Jeremy I. Lessem [as authorized 5-4-21]

JEREMY I. LESSEM

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Dated: May 5, 2021 LAW OFFICE OF KAREN JOYNT

By: _/s/Karen Joynt [as authorized 5-4-2]

KAREN JOYNT Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Dated: May 5, 2021 OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

By: _/s/Matthew W. Roman [as authorized 5-4-21

JOHN C. BRIDGES MATTHEW W. ROMAN Attorneys for defendant Officer White

Dated: May 5, 2021 PORTER SCOTT

A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 1] By: _/s/ Suli Mastorakos [as authorized 5-4-21

CARL L. FESSENDEN SULI A. MASTORAKOS Attorneys for Defendant Patricia Robinson-Hard ORDER

Good cause appearing, the parties’ stipulated request to modify the Court’s Scheduling Order (ECF No. 4) is GRANTED.

The parties may file dispositive motions no later than August 11, 2021. All other deadlines remain in effect.

/) ( 4 /

54 || DATED: May 5, 2021 “ \/ 7 Vn)

Troy L. Nunley ] United States District Judge