Rosemary H. Mullins v. County of Fresno

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ROSEMARY HINOJOSA MULLINS, Case No. 1:21-cv-00405-ADA-SAB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER RE: STIPULATED MOTION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER 13 v. (ECF No. 34) COUNTY OF FRESNO, et al., 15 Defendants.

18 A scheduling order for this matter issued on May 6, 2022. (ECF No. 25.) The scheduling order was modified once on February 16, 2023. (ECF No. 30.) On April 11, 2023, this action was reassigned from District Judge Anthony W. Ishii to District Judge Ana de Alba. (ECF No. 32.) On April 24, 2023, the newly assigned District Judge reset the pretrial conference and trial dates. (ECF No. 32.) Currently before the Court is the parties’ stipulation requesting the Court reset the pretrial conference and trial dates due to a scheduling conflict of counsel, as well as a request to extend the discovery deadlines. The parties propose this is an appropriate time to extend discovery given the necessity of changing the trial date, and based on the proffer that they have completed a number of depositions, but have recently encountered multiple scheduling conflicts amongst counsel and witnesses, that have impacted the ability to move into subsequent phases of relevant discovery.

1 The Court finds good cause exists to grant the parties’ stipulated motion. However, the Court expects this second modification to be the final extension of the discovery deadlines based on the parties’ completing depositions in this matter. (See ECF No. 25 at 7 (“The parties are advised that due to the impacted nature of civil cases on the district judges in the Eastern District of California, Fresno Division, that stipulations to continue set dates are disfavored and will not be granted absent good cause.”) (emphasis in original).)

7 Further, the parties’ requested pretrial conference and trial dates are too close in proximity to the parties’ proposed dispositive motion filing deadline. The Court shall take this opportunity to reset all dates in this matter, however, given the nomination of District Judge de Alba to the Ninth Circuit, the parties are forewarned that it is not clear whether these pretrial conference and trial dates will remain set. Nonetheless, the Court hereby sets all discovery deadlines and the trial date in this matter and the parties shall presume that such trial date shall guide the parties’ expectation of proceeding into trial, and the parties shall proceed through discovery under such presumption. (See ECF No. 25 at 7 (“The foregoing order represents the best estimate of the court and counsel as to the agenda most suitable to dispose of this case. The trial date reserved is specifically reserved for this case.”).)

17 In this regard, the Court further notes that consent or declination of consent forms have not been returned in this action. To consent or decline to magistrate judge jurisdiction, a party may sign and file the consent form available on the Court’s website, at: hhttp://www.caed.uscourts.gov/caednew/index.cfm/forms/civil/. Parties may consent, decline or withhold consent without any adverse consequences, and the assigned Magistrate Judge will not be informed of the individual party’s holding or withholding of consent. The Court further notes that the District Judges in the Eastern District are among the busiest in the nation. (See ECF No. 40 entered in Case No. 1:20-cv-01069-ADA-SAB (“The parties are further advised that due to the judicial resource emergency and COVID pandemic, there are more than 130 motions currently under submission in Judge de Alba’s recently re-assigned caseload. The Court understands the impact that such a backlog has on the parties and although the Court will continue working diligently to resolve all pending motions, it may still be months before the parties’ pending | motion is resolved. As such, in light of having the heaviest district court caseload in the nation, | limited Court resources, and the need to prioritize criminal and older civil matters over more | recently filed actions, this Court strongly encourages the parties to consent to conduct all further | proceedings before a U.S. Magistrate Judge.”).)!

5 Accordingly, pursuant to the stipulation of the parties and good cause appearing, IT IS | HEREBY ORDERED that the parties’ stipulated motion to modify the schedule (ECF No. 34) is | GRANTED. The scheduling order is thus modified as follows: 8 1. Non-Expert Discovery Deadline: January 12, 2024; 9 2. Expert Disclosure Deadline: February 9, 2024; 10 3. Supplemental Expert Disclosure Deadline: March 9, 2024; 11 4. Expert Discovery Deadline: April 5, 2024; 12 5. Dispositive Motion Deadline: April 19, 2024; 13 6. Pretrial Conference: September 23, 2024, at 1:30 p.m., in Courtroom 1, before 14 District Judge Ana de Alba; and 15 7. Trial: December 3, 2024, at 8:30 a.m., in Courtroom 1, before District Judge 16 Ana de Alba.

18 IT IS SO ORDERED. DAM Le | Dated: _May 8, 2023 _ Oe UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE ' Judicial notice may be taken “of court filings and other matters of public record.” Reyn’s Pasta Bella, LLC v. Visa | USA, Inc., 442 F.3d 741, 746 n.6 (9th Cir. 2006).