Hurtado v. State of CA

KAnengte lM C. aHrreanzdceor sJor.n ( S(SBBNN 2 13309854350) ) GUIZAR, HENDERSON & CARRAZCO, L.L.P.

18301 Irvine Blvd.

Tustin, CA 92780

Tel: (714) 541-8600

Fax: (714) 541-8601

E-mail: [email protected]

Attorneys for Plaintiff Francisco Hurtado

ROB BONTA, State Bar No. 202668

Attorney General of California

PETER A. MESHOT, State Bar No. 117061

Supervising Deputy Attorney General

LEEANN E. WHITMORE, State Bar No.

214870

Deputy Attorney General

1300 I Street, Suite 125

P.O. Box 944255

Sacramento, CA 94244-2550

Telephone: (916) 210-7515

Fax: (916) 322-8288

E-mail: [email protected]

Attorneys for Defendants State of California, by and through the California Highway

Patrol and Edgardo Yepez

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

IN AND FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRANCISCO HURTADO, AN Case No.: 2:19-cv-02343-TLN-AC INDIVIDUAL,

Plaintiff, JOINT STIPULATION REGARDING v. MODIFICATION OF THE PROPOSED SCHEDULING ORDER AND ORDER

S CT AA LT IFE O O RF N C IAA L HI IF GO HR WN AIA Y; P EA DT GR AO RL D; O E LD OG PA ER ZD ;O A NY DE P DE OZ E A SK 1A THROUGH 100, INCLUSIVE, Action Filed: April 2, 2019 Defendants.

TO THE CLERK OF THE COURT AND TO THE HONORABLE

TROY L. NUNLEY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE:

The Court issued the original scheduling order in this case on January 29, 2021 based on the stipulation of the parties. (ECF No. 16). On July 29, 2021, the Court modified the scheduling order to allow the defense to schedule orthopedic and psychiatric examinations. (ECF No. 20). On September 10, 2021, the Court modified the scheduling order to allow the defense to take the deposition of one of Plaintiff's treating physicians, Dr. Bratton (who was out of the country) (ECF No. 22).

The parties have completed numerous depositions and written discovery, including Dr. Bratton's deposition. Plaintiff is continuing to treat for his injuries. In light of information received, the nature of Plaintiff's injuries, the voluminous medical records, the number of experts involved, the availability of the experts to complete the Rule 26 Expert Reports by the current deadline date and the number of Rule 26 Expert Reports to be completed by the various experts in this matter, the parties agree that they need a brief extension of time to disclose experts. The parties, by and through their respective counsel, have agreed to modify the scheduling order dates to take place as follows: Matter Current Date Requested New Date Initial Rule 26 Expert November 18, 2021 December 3, 2021 Disclosure and Exchange of Initial Expert Reports

Rule 26 Rebuttal Expert December 9, 2021 December 27, 2021 Disclosure and Exchange of Rebuttal Expert

Reports

Modification of the Court’s scheduling order requires a showing of good cause, Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b), and good cause requires a showing of due diligence, Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). To establish good cause, the party seeking the modification of the scheduling order must generally show that even with the exercise of due diligence, they cannot meet the requirement of this order. Id. The court may also consider the prejudice to the party opposing the modification. Id. If the party seeking to amend the scheduling order fails to show due diligence the inquiry should end and the court should not grant the motion to modify. Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison Co., 302 F.3d 8 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002) Here, the parties have diligently conducted discovery and worked on disclosure of experts but based on the information received, the nature of Plaintiff's injuries, the voluminous medical records, the number of experts involved, the availability of the experts to complete the Rule 26 Expert Reports by the current deadline date and the number of Rule 26 Expert Reports to be completed by the various experts in this matter, the parties cannot disclose experts on the current date of November 18, 2021 and need a brief continuance of the currently set dates. (The Rebuttal Expert Disclosure date would be moved also in tandem with the new Initial Expert Disclosure date as set forth in the Stipulation and [Proposed] Order). The parties agree that the above modification of the scheduling order is necessary.

Dated: November 8, 2021

GUIZAR, HENDERSON & CARRAZCO, LLP

By: /s/ Kent M. Henderson

Humberto Guizar

Kent M. Henderson

Angel Carrazco, Jr.

Attorneys for Plaintiff Francisco Hurtado

Dated: November 8, 2021 Respectfully submitted,

ROB BONTA

Attorney General of California PETER A. MESHOT

Supervising Deputy Attorney General

/s/ LeeAnn E. Whitmore

LEEANN E. WHITMORE

Deputy Attorney General

Attorneys for Defendants State of California by and through California Highway Patrol and Edgardo Yepez

]

TO ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD

HEREIN:

The Court, having reviewed the Stipulation of the parties regarding scheduling, and good cause appearing therefore, hereby modifies the scheduling ‘ order as follows:

Current Date

Initial Rule 26 Expert November 18, 2021 December 3, 2021 Disclosure and Exchange of Initial Expert Reports

Rule 26 Rebuttal Expert | December 9, 2021 December 27, 2021 Disclosure and Exchange of Rebuttal Expert

Reports

'© | IT IS SO ORDERED:

J) /) “ \/ ) hha DATED: November 9, 2021 ao ZAMAN Troy L. Nunley } United States District Judge