Ernesto Carrillo v. City of Reedley, a municipal corporation, City of Reedley...

9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12 ERNESTO CARRILLO, ) Case No.: 1:24-CV-01093-JLT-EPG ) 13 Plaintiff, ) ) STIPULATION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING v. ) ORDER AND ORDER ) CITY OF REEDLEY, a municipal ) (ECF No. 25) corporation, City of Reedley Police ) Department Sergeant STEVEN PURYEAR, ) individually, and DOES 1-50, jointly and ) severally. ) ) 18 Defendants. ) 19 Pursuant to Local Rule 143, by and through their undersigned counsel, Plaintiff and Defendants (“Parties”) hereby respectfully stipulate and request that the Court Order that the scheduling order entered on December 17, 2024 (ECF No. 15) be modified by extending the discovery deadlines and other successive deadlines.

23 “The district court is given broad discretion in supervising the pretrial phase of litigation.”

24 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.’” Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Johnson, 975 F.2d at 1 607).

2 The parties have been diligent in their discovery efforts. Defendant served Plaintiff with written discovery requests on February 5, 2025, with Plaintiff providing responses on March 31, 2025.

4 (Declaration of Eduardo Ruiz (“Ruiz Decl.”) ¶ 5). Defendant subpoenaed records from the medical facilities where Plaintiff has sought treatment. (Ruiz Decl. ¶ 6). On May 21, 2025, Plaintiff served Defendant with written discovery requests. Due to the volume of the requested discovery, Defendant requested and received extensions to provide Defendants’ responses to Plaintiff’s discovery. (Ruiz Decl. ¶ 7).

9 Defendants’ responses were served to Plaintiff on July 21, 2025. The parties met and conferred related to Defendants’ responses to Plaintiff’s written discovery, wherein the parties agreed that Defendants would provide supplemental responses. (ECF No. 21; Ruiz Decl. ¶ 8). These supplemental responses were served to Plaintiff on October 22, 2025. (Ruiz Decl. ¶ 10). Due to the volume of Defendant’s supplemental responses, the parties agreed to reschedule Defendant Sgt.

14 Steven Puryear’s deposition of October 24, 2025, to a later date. (Ruiz Decl. ¶¶ 8-9).

15 Counsel for the Parties have endeavored to exercise professional courtesy to counsel and deponents to the maximum extent possible by scheduling depositions only on dates that align with the schedules of all counsel and the deponent. The first mutually available date on which to reschedule Defendant Puryear’s deposition was December 8, 2025.

19 The deposition of Sgt. Steven Puryear was conducted on December 8, 2025. (Ruiz Decl. ¶ 11). The parties are hopeful that a resolution may be achieved without further expense of litigation and have, thus, agreed to participate in a Settlement Conference before Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on March 17, 2026. (ECF No. 24; Ruiz Decl. ¶ 12). The parties have agreed to conduct the deposition of Plaintiff Ernesto Carrillo, on January 15, 2026.

24 Additionally, a scheduling conflict has arisen with respect to the current jury trial date of December 15, 2026, and the Parties also require some additional time for non-expert discovery.

26 Accordingly, the Parties request that the trial date be re-set to the next available date that aligns with everyone’s schedules, May 17, 2027, and since the Parties also require additional time to complete non-expert discovery, are proposing an extension of the other, successive dates, thereby correspondingly extending the other dates to coincide with the new trial date.

2 In view of counsel for the Parties’ desire to exercise professional courtesy to counsel and deponents to the maximum extent possible by only setting depositions on dates that align with everyone’s schedules, and the fact that all counsels’ schedules are highly impacted, it will not be possible to complete the depositions and other discovery necessary in this case prior to the present cutoff.

7 Accordingly, good cause exists for the requested modification of the operative scheduling order. The parties have been diligent in conducting discovery, including, but not limited to, conducting written discovery, issuing subpoenas, resolving discovery disputes informally, setting and conducting the deposition of the Defendant Sgt. Steven Puryear, coordinating the deposition of Plaintiff Ernesto Carrillo, and the parties will be coordinating other depositions. Granting this extension will allow the parties to prepare for and meaningfully participate in the Settlement Conference on March 17, 2026, while also conserving attorney time and resources.

14 The parties met and conferred on this issue and propose to modify the scheduling order as follows: 16 Non-Expert Discovery Deadline: 17 • June 15, 2026 (modified from January 23, 2026 [ECF No. 15]) 18 Expert Disclosures Deadline: 19 • July 20, 2026 (modified from February 27, 2026 [ECF No. 15]) 20 Rebuttal Expert Disclosures Deadline: 21 • August 17, 2026 (modified from March 27, 2026 [ECF No. 15]) 22 Expert Discovery to close on: 23 • September 14, 2026 (modified from April 24, 2026 [ECF No. 15]) 24 Dispositive Motion Filing Deadline: 25 • November 13, 2026 (modified from June 23, 2026 [ECF No. 15]) 26 Pretrial Conference: 27 • Monday, March 15, 2027, at 1:30 p.m., in Department 4 (modified from October 28 26, 2026, at 1:30 p.m., in Department 4 [ECF No. 15]) 1 Jury Trial: 2 • Tuesday, May 18, 2027, at 8:30 a.m., in Department 4 (modified from December 3 15, 2026 (ECF No. 15]) 4 For the foregoing reasons, the Parties, by and through their undersigned counsel, stipulate and respectfully request that the scheduling order be amended, as set forth above.

6 Respectfully Submitted Dated: January 14, 2026 LONGYEAR, LAVRA & CAHILL, LLP 9 By: /s/ Eduardo Ruiz VAN LONGYEAR EDUARDO RUIZ 11 Attorneys for Defendants, City of Reedley and 12 Sgt. Steven Lee Puryear, Jr. Dated: January 14, 2026 LAW OFFICE OF SANJAY S. SCHMIDT -and- 14 CASPER, MEADOWS, SCHWARTZ & COOK 15 By: /s/ Sanjay S. Schmidt* SANJAY S. SCHMIDT ADAM CARLSON 17 Attorneys for Plaintiff, Ernesto Carrillo

*Pursuant to Local Rule 131(e), Mr. Schmidt consent to the filing of this document via CM/ECF.

1 ORDER 2 Upon review of the parties’ stipulation to modify the scheduling order (ECF No. 25), IT 3 ORDERED that the scheduling order is modified as follows: 4 Non-Expert Discovery Deadline: 5 e June 15, 2026 6 Expert Disclosures Deadline: 7 e July 20, 2026 8 Rebuttal Expert Disclosures Deadline: e August 17, 2026 Expert Discovery to close on: e September 14, 2026 13 Dispositive Motion Filing Deadline: 4 e November 13, 2026 15 Pretrial Conference: 16 e Monday, March 15, 2027, at 1:30 p.m., in Courtroom 4 (JLT) before District 17 Judge Jennifer L. Thurston 18 Jury Trial: 19 e Tuesday, May 18, 2027, at 8:30 a.m., in Courtroom 4 (JLT) before District Judg 20 Jennifer L. Thurston || IT IS SO ORDERED. || Dated: _January 15, 2026 Fey — UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE