Stowe v. Alford
Stowe v. Alford
Trial Court Opinion
1 KLaEwL LOAffNic Se .o Pf AKTeTllEanR SPOatNte, rEsSonQ . SB No. 307190 2 770 L Street, Suite 950 Sacramento, CA 95814 3 P: (916) 905-4464 4 F: (916) 721-2742 E: [email protected] 5 Attorney for Plaintiff KRISTOPHER STOWE 6
7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 KRISTOPHER STOWE, an individual, Case No.: 2:19-cv-01652-KJM-AC 11 Plaintiff, STIPULATION TO MODIFY BRIEFING 12 DEADLINES RE: DEFENDANT’S v. MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 13 [ECF NO. 20] BRAD ALFORD, in his personal capacity 14
Defendant. 15
16 INTRODUCTION 17 The parties, Plaintiff Kristopher Stowe (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant Brad Alford 18 (“Defendant”), through their respective attorneys of record, hereby jointly stipulate to modify the 19 motion briefing deadlines as set forth below. 20 RECITAL/GROUNDS FOR RELIEF 21 Pursuant to Rule 16, a party may seek modification of a scheduling order, including 22 modification of a discovery cut-off date, “only for good cause and with a judge’s consent.” Fed. 23 R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). Rule 16(b)’s good cause inquiry focuses primarily on the movant’s diligence. 24 Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co.,
232 F.3d 1271, 1294(9th Cir. 2000). However, the court has 25 “broad discretion in supervising the pretrial phase of litigation.” Zivkovic v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 26
302 F.3d 1080, 1087(9th Cir. 2002). A party may establish good cause by showing: (1) the [the 27 parties were] diligent in assisting the court in creating a workable Rule 16 order; (2) that [the 28 1 parties’] noncompliance with a Rule 16 deadline occurred or will occur, notwithstanding [their] 2 diligent efforts to comply, because of the development of matters which could not have been 3 reasonably foreseen or anticipated at the time of the Rule 16 scheduling conference; and (3) that 4 [they were] diligent in seeking amendment of the Rule 16 order, once it because apparent that 5 [they] could not comply with the order. Hood v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co., 567
6 F.Supp.2d 1221, 1224(E.D. Cal. 2008)(citations omitted). 7 The current deadline to file an opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment 8 is December 3, 2021. The current deadline to complete and file a Reply to Plaintiff’s opposition is 9 December 10, 2021. 10 The parties stipulate and agreed to modify the briefing schedule for the below reasons: 11 (1) Defendant filed his Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 20) on November 19, 2021. 12 (2) Defendant filed a notice of lodging exhibits with the court which included exhibits “D” 13 through “G”. 14 (3) Defendant mistakenly failed to serve those exhibits on Plaintiff’s counsel. 15 (4) Plaintiff’s counsel learned of the omission on December 2, 2021 after the Thanksgiving 16 holiday. 17 (5) Defendant served the exhibits on Plaintiff’s counsel of December 3, 2021. 18 (6) On November 22, 2021, the Court on its own motion, continued the hearing date of this 19 motion to February 11, 2022. 20 (7) Plaintiff now request to submit his Opposition to the motion on or before December 17, 21 2021. 22 (8) Given the intervening holiday, Defendant’s Reply will be due on or before December 29, 23 2021 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 l SO STIPULATED. 2 Dated: December 9, 2021 LAW OFFICE OF KELLAN PATTERSON 3 4 /s/ Kellan S. Patterson 5 Kellan Patterson Attorney for KRISTOPHER STOWE 6 7 Dated: December 9, 2021 PORTER SCOTT 8 9 /S/ John Whitefleet 10 John Whitefleet Attorney for BRAD ALFORD 1] 12 ORDER 13 The Court does find good cause to modify and extend motion briefing deadline in light of 14 | the recitals stipulated above and so order that: 15 1. Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. [20]) to 16 be due on or before December 17, 2021. 17 2. Defendant’s Reply to Plaintiff's Opposition to be due one or before December 29, 2021. 18 3. The hearing date as to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. [20]) will 19 remain unchanged and will take place on February 11, 2022. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 | DATED: December 22, 2021. 22 23 CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 25 26 27 28 {02567763.DOCX} STIPULATION TO MODIFY BRIEFING DEADLINES RE: DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
Reference
- Status
- Unknown