Livingston v. Leupold & Stevens

1 Joseph P. Tabrisky, SBN 120749 Email: [email protected] LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD E. BISHOP 222 South Harbor Blvd., Suite 900 Anaheim, California 92805 Telephone: (781) 332-7188 Facsimile: 888-844-0242 Attorneys for Defendant LEUPOLD & STEVENS, INC. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA MARY LIVINGSTON, ) Case No.: 2:23−CV−00090−KJM−DMC 12 ) Plaintiff, ) STIPULATION TO MODIFY 13 ) SCHEDULING ORDER; ORDER ) 14 vs. ) ) 15 ) LEUPOLD & STEVENS, INC., an ) Oregon Corporation doing business in ) California, and Does 1 through 25, ) 17 ) inclusive, ) 18 ) Defendants. ) 19 )

21 Pursuant to the Court’s Scheduling Order [Dkt. No.13] and Local Rule 143, the parties stipulate and propose to the Court that the Scheduling Order entered on July 14, 2023 (Dkt. No. 13) be amended 24 WHEREAS, on July 14, 2023, this Court issued a Scheduling Order in this matter setting the following discovery and motion deadlines: 26 Expert Witness designations: 12/11/23 27 Rebuttal Expert Witness Designation: 01/08/24 1 Expert Discovery Motion heard no later than: 03/29/24 2 All non-expert Discovery Completed and all Motions heard by: 02/12/24; 3 All dispositive motions heard by: 05/29/24; 4 Settlement Conference set for 4/17/2024 at 10:00 AM in Redding (DMC) 5 before Magistrate Judge Dennis M. Cota 6 WHEREAS, “The district court is given broad discretion in supervising the pretrial phase of litigation.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir. 1992) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Rule 16(b) provides that “[a] schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). “The schedule may be modified ‘if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.’”

12 Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Johnson, 975 F.2d at 607).

14 WHEREAS, in light of the pending settlement conference date, the parties believe that an additional four (4) month extension on the discovery/motion deadlines is reasonable and necessary.

17 The proposed extension will interfere with the other deadlines set by this court, including the Settlement Conference Date, currently set for April 17, 2024; 19 ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED and REQUESTED by the parties that the Scheduling Order [Dkt. No. 13] be modified as follows: 21 Expert Disclosures: April 15, 2024 22 Rebuttal Expert Disclosures: May 13, 2024 23 Expert Discovery Completed and all Motions heard by: July 29, 2024 24 All non-expert Discovery Completed and all Motions heard by: June 10, 2024 25 All Dispositive Motions heard by: September 30, 2024 26 Settlement Conference: June 19, 2024 27 Good cause exists for this extension. The parties are cooperating with discovery and attempting to schedule the medical examination of the Plaintiff for her claimed injuries as well as a joint inspection of the scope used by the Plaintiff which allegedly caused her injuries.

3 The parties have agreed to mediate this matter in advance of the proposed settlement conference and once the joint inspection and independent medical examination are performed.

7 DATED: December 5, 2023 LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD E.

BISHOP 9 /s/ Joseph P. Tabrisky _______________________________ 10 Joseph P. Tabrisky, Esq.

Attorneys for Defendant, LEUPOLD & STEVENS, INC. DATED: December 5, 2023 LANDSEM LAW OFFICES 14 /s/ Micahel A. Landsem _______________________________ 15 Michael Landsem, II Attorneys for PLAINTIFF, MARY LIVINGSTON IT IS SO ORDERED. Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, the schedule for this | case is extended as follows: 3 - Expert Disclosures: April 15, 2024 4 - Rebuttal Expert Disclosures: May 13, 2024 5 - Expert Discovery Completed and all Motions heard by: July 29, 2024 6 - All non-expert Discovery Completed and all Motions heard by: June 10, 7 2024 8 - All Dispositive Motions heard by: September 30, 2024 9 - Settlement Conference: June 19, 2024, at 10:00 a.m.

10 All other dates shall remain as set in this court’s Scheduling Order [Dkt. No. 11} 13] | Dated: December 5, 2023 Ss..c0_, 14 DENNIS M. COTA 15 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1 FEDERAL COURT PROOF OF SERVICE 2 I am over the age of 18 years of age and not a party to this action. I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this Court at whose direction the service was made. My business address is 222 South Harbor Boulevard, Suite 900, Anaheim, California 92805. My electronic service address is [email protected].

6 On December 5, 2023, I served the following document: STIPULATION AND ORDER TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER on the person or persons below as follows: Michael Landsem, II, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiff Mary Livingston LANDSEM LAW OFFICE Telephone: (530) 605-3744 1145 Hilltop Drive, Ste. D2 Facsimile: (530) 466-3196 Redding, CA 96003 Email: [email protected] I electronically filed the foregoing document(s) and that they are available for viewing and downloading from the Court’s CM/ECF system. In addition, I caused such document(s) to be Electronically Mailed through the Law Offices of Richard E.

Bishop’s electronic mail system for the above-entitled case. Should your office require a hard copy of said document, please contact our office. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on December 5, 2023, at Anaheim, California.

20 Jeanne Steinebrenner /s/ Jeanne Steinebrunner (Type or print name) (Signature)