Liddicote v. Les Schwab Tire Centers of CA, LLC

1 Matthew C. Briggs, Esq.

Corey A. Pingle, Esq.

2 Law Offices of Corey A. Pingle 9550 Warner Avenue, #250-06 Fountain Valley, CA 92708 Tel: (714) 593-2306 Fax: (650) 394-3132 email: [email protected] email: [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiff CLINT LIDDICOTE Britney N. Torres, Bar No. 287019 [email protected] Nathaniel H. Jenkins, Bar No. 312067 [email protected] LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.

10 500 Capitol Mall Suite 2000 Sacramento, California 95814 Telephone: 916.830.7200 Fax No.: 916.561.0828 Attorneys for Defendant LES SCHWAB TIRE CENTERS OF CALIFORNIA, LLC EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CLINT LIDDICOTE, Case No. 2:22-cv-02316-MCE-DB Plaintiff, Hon. Morrison C. England vs. JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER TO 19 MODIFY THE SCHEDULING ORDER LES SCHWAB TIRE CENTERS OF CALIFORNIA, LLC Complaint Filed: November 8, 2022 Trial Date: Not Set 21 Defendant.

1 TO THE COURT AND ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 2 Plaintiff CLINT LIDDICOTE ( “Plaintiff”), and Defendant LES SCHWAB TIRE CENTERS OF CALIFORNIA, LLC ( “Defendant”) (collectively, the “Parties”) by and through their counsel of record hereby submit the following Joint Stipulation to Modify the Scheduling Order (per the Order of the Court dated April 11, 2024 at Dkt. 20).

6 WHEREAS, pursuant to this Court’s Initial Pretrial Scheduling Order dated January 25, 2023 (Dkt. 7), the close of fact/non-expert discovery was set for December 30, 2023, the deadline for disclosure of expert witnesses was 60 days thereafter (February 28, 2024), and the deadline for expert witness discovery was 30 days thereafter (March 30, 2024).

10 WHEREAS, the Parties elected to submit to the Court’s Voluntary Dispute Resolution Program (“VDRP”) on October 18, 2023 (see Dkt 13 and 14), and thereafter participated in a VDRP session with mediator Daniel McVeigh, Esq., on February 15, 2024. Unfortunately, the Parties were not able to resolve the case.

14 WHEREAS, both Parties made reasonable and diligent efforts to complete fact discovery by December 30, 2023, including Plaintiff’s deposition being taken by Defendant on December 7, 2023; however, the Parties believe additional fact discovery, and potentially expert discovery, is needed to prepare for dispositive motion work and/or trial.

18 WHEREAS, the Parties agree to complete and conduct all further fact discovery, as noted above, within two months, and all expert discovery, within three months, of this Stipulation; 20 WHEREAS, neither Party will be prejudiced by a continuance of the scheduling order; 21 WHEREAS, in light of the foregoing, the Parties contend that judicial economy is best served if the Parties continue the current scheduling order, specifically the discovery and dispositive motion deadlines, to allow the Parties a meaningful opportunity to engage in brief, further discovery, and provide time to prepare dispositive motions which could narrow the issues for and/or negate the need for a trial.

26 /// /// /// 1 WHEREAS, good cause exists to modify the Court’s scheduling Order as follows: 2 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). “A schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); see e.g. Spiller v. Ella Smithers Geriatric Ctr., 919 F.2d 339, 343 (5th Cir. 1990) (court impliedly granted motion to modify scheduling order by allowing summary judgment motion after pretrial motion cut-off date). To establish “good cause,” parties seeking modification of a scheduling order must generally show that, even with the exercise of due diligence, they cannot meet the order’s timetable. Johnson, supra, 975 F.2d at 609; see e.g., Hood v. Hartford Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 567 F.Supp.2d 1221, 1224 (E.D. Cal. 2008) (granting request for modification that was promptly made when it became apparent that compliance with the scheduling order was not possible). In determining “good cause,” courts also consider the importance of the requested modification, the potential prejudice in allowing the modification, and, conversely, whether denial of the requested modification would result in prejudice. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co. v. City of El Paso, 346 F.3d 541, 546 (5th Cir. 2003) (involving amendment of pleadings). Here, in addition to this Court’s Order dated April 11, 2024 (Dkt. 20), the Parties contend that there is good cause to modify the Scheduling Order as set forth above.

18 NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the Parties, through their counsel of record, that the following deadlines be continued as follows: 20 Deadline to complete fact discovery: June 28, 2024; 21 Deadline to complete expert disclosures: July 12, 2024; 22 Deadline to exchange rebuttal expert witnesses: July 26, 2024; 23 Deadline to complete expert discovery: August 16, 2024; and 24 Deadline to file all dispositive motions: September 26, 2024.

25 /// /// /// /// The Parties further propose that the Court not set a trial date in this matter until after ruling on Defendant’s dispositive motion.

3 IT IS SO STIPULATED.

4 Dated: April 30, 2024 LAW OFFICE OF COREY A. PINGLE

By: /s/ Matthew C. Briggs (Approved on 4/30/24) 7 MATTHEW C. BRIGGS, ESQ.

COREY PINGLE, ESQ.

8 Attorneys for Plaintifff CLINT LIDDICOTE Dated: April 30, 2024 LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.

By: /s/ Nathaniel H. Jenkins 13 BRITNEY N. TORRES, ESQ.

NATHANIEL H. JENKINS, ESQ.

Attorneys for Defendant 15 LES SCHWAB TIRE CENTERS OF CALIFORNIA

1 ORDER The Court Orders the Scheduling Order to be modified and the following deadlines be continued as follows: 5 Deadline to complete fact discovery: June 28, 2024; 6 Deadline to complete expert disclosures: July 12, 2024; 7 Deadline to exchange rebuttal expert witnesses: July 26, 2024; g Deadline to complete expert discovery: August 16, 2024; and 9 Deadline to file all dispositive motions: September 26, 2024.

10 IT IS SO ORDERED.

D Dated: May 3, 2024 8 A ates LE rlASX SENIOR UNITED STATES URTRICT JUDGE