(PC) Gomes v. Mathis

1 ROB BONTA, State Bar No. 202668 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 EXTEND EXPERT-DISCLOSURE v. DEADLINE BY THIRTY DAYS DAVID M. MATHIS, et al., Action Filed: September 22, 2017 17 Defendants.

19 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(d) and 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 thirty-day extension of the deadline to disclose expert witnesses; the current deadline is August 2, 2021, based on the Court’s May 6, 2021 Order (ECF No. 67). This request for an extension is needed because the parties require more time to disclose expert witnesses.

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 (see ECF No. 67), the parties have completed discovery. Due to Plaintiff’s medical condition, his deposition was taken in two sessions on May 28 and June 29. Defense counsel received the transcript of Plaintiff’s June 29 deposition around July 21, and requires more time to review the transcript to ascertain whether a retained heart specialist is needed based on Plaintiff’s testimony. Plaintiff if scheduled to undergo two outpatient medical procedures during the week of August 2, and has been focusing on those matters such that he also requests an extension of the disclosure deadline. The parties do not anticipate that this requested extension will affect any other scheduling deadline and that they will be able to complete expert discovery by the current October 1, 2021 deadline. Good cause therefore exists to grant this stipulated request.

17 IT IS SO STIPULATED.

18 Dated: August 2, 2021 Respectfully submitted, 19 ROB BONTA Attorney General of California 20 PETER A. MESHOT Supervising Deputy Attorney General 22 /s/ Diana Esquivel DIANA ESQUIVEL 23 Deputy Attorney General Attorneys for Defendant Lotersztain Dated: August 2, 2021 /s/ Larry Gomes (as authorized 8/2/21) 26 LAWRENCE G. GOMES Plaintiff pro se LA2019501633 35340107.docx 1 ORDER 2 Good cause appearing, the parties’ stipulated request for a thirty day extension of the expert | disclosure deadlines is GRANTED.

4 The parties shall disclose expert witnesses on or before September 1, 2021.

5 In all other respects, the May 6, 2021 Amended Scheduling Order (ECF No. 67) and the | original December 16, 2019 Scheduling Order (ECF No. 53) remain in full force.

7 IT IS SO ORDERED.

9 Dated: August 6, 2021 Sx<o_- 10 DENNIS M. COTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 1 DECLARATION OF SERVICE BY ELECTRONIC & U.S. MAIL Case Name: Gomez v. Mathis, et al.

No.: 2:19-cv-1499 KJM-DMC I declare: I am employed in the Office of the Attorney General, which is the office of a member of the California State Bar, at which member’s direction this service is made. I am 18 years of age or older and not a party to this matter. I am familiar with the business practice at the Office of the Attorney General for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. In accordance with that practice, correspondence placed in the internal mail collection system at the Office of the Attorney General is deposited with the United States Postal Service that same day in the ordinary course of business.

9 On August 2, 2021, I served the attached STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER TO EXTEND EXPERT-DISCLOSURE DEADLINE BY THIRTY DAYS by transmitting a true copy thereof in PDF format via electronic mail to, and placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid, in the internal mail collection system at the Office of the Attorney General at 1300 I Street, Suite 125, P.O. Box 944255, Sacramento, CA 94244-2550, addressed as follows: Lawrence E. Gomes 3327 W. Monroe St. #B Phoenix, AZ 85009 Email: [email protected] Plaintiff pro se I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States and the State of California the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on August 2, 2021, at Sacramento, California.

20 T. Yeh /s/ T. Yeh Declarant Signature