Joseph Amey, as an individual, and Warren Amey, as an individual v. County of...

LONGYEAR, LAVRA & CAHILL, LLP Van Longyear, CSB No.: 84189 Nicole M. Cahill, CSB No.: 287165 Alexander Mahoney, CSB No. 359995 University Avenue, Suite 280 Sacramento, CA 95825 Phone: 916-974-8500 Facsimile: 916-974-8510 Email: [email protected] 5 [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Defendants, County of Sacramento, Deputy Andrew Patterson, Deputy Andrew Falvey, Deputy Najee Burge UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SACRAMENTO DIVISION JOSEPH AMEY, as an individual, and ) Case No.: 2:24-CV-02232-TLN-CSK WARREN AMEY, as an individual ) ) STIPULATION AND ORDER TO 13 Plaintiffs ) MODIFY THE SCHEDULING ORDER ) v. ) ) ANDREW PATTERSON, as an individual, ) ANDREW FALVEY, as an individual, ) NAJEE BURGE, as an individual, and ) COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, as a ) municipal corporation, ) ) 18 Defendants. ) ) Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 16(b)(1)(A) and Local Rule 143, the parties, through counsel, stipulate to and hereby respectfully request a modification of this Court’s scheduling order. Pursuant to the Court’s operative Scheduling Order (ECF No. 15), the current schedule is as follows:  Fact discovery cut off: January 14, 2026  Expert witness disclosure: March 14, 2026  Supplemental expert disclosure: April 13, 2026  Dispositive motion deadline: July 12, 2026 The parties in this case request an extension of the foregoing deadlines by 90 days. With respect to the extension of fact discovery, the scope of discovery shall be limited to: (1) the deposition of individuals most knowledgeable about the topics listed in the notice of deposition served by Plaintiffs on December 8, 2025 (“PMQ Deposition Notice”); (2) no more than 5 interrogatories to Defendants regarding whether Plaintiffs’ arrests were subject to an internal affairs investigation; and (3) completion of Rule 26 disclosures. A true and correct copy of Plaintiff’s PMQ Deposition Notice has been attached hereto as Exhibit 1.

6 The respective deadlines would thus be as follows: 7  Fact discovery cut off: April 14, 2026 8  Expert witness disclosure: May 15, 2026 9  Supplemental expert disclosure: June 15, 2026 10  Dispositive motion deadline: September 13, 2026 11 A scheduling order may only be modified upon a showing of good cause and by leave of Court. Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 6(b)(1)(A); Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). In considering whether a party moving for a schedule modification has good cause, the Court primarily focuses on the diligence of the party seeking the modification. 15 Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609.

16 The parties exchanged initial disclosures on March 14, 2025. Defendants’ disclosures contained a large volume of videos and other media. (Declaration of Nicole Cahill (“Cahill Decl.”), ¶ 2.) Shortly thereafter, the parties opted to attempt to resolve the matter through a settlement conference prior to undertaking substantial discovery. On April 25, 2025, the Court set a settlement conference before Judge Riordan on June 17, 2025. (ECF No. 7.) The case did not resolve at the settlement conference. (ECF No. 13.) Following the settlement conference, Defendants served Rule 68 offers to Plaintiffs on August 27, 2025, but Plaintiffs did not accept.

23 (Cahill Decl., ¶ 4.) During these settlement efforts, the parties agreed to an informal stay of discovery. (Cahill Decl., ¶ 4.) As it became apparent that the matter would not settle, on September 12, 2025, counsel for Defendants reached out to Plaintiffs’ counsel to determine whether the parties required more time conduct discovery. (Cahill Decl., ¶ 5.) On October 8, 2025, Plaintiffs’ counsel agreed to extend deadlines so that the parties could conduct additional discovery. (Cahill Decl., ¶ 6.) The Court issued a modified scheduling order on October 17, 2025. (ECF No. 15) Since that date, the parties have worked diligently to complete several depositions – including the depositions of both Plaintiffs and all three Defendant deputies.

3 (Declaration of Alexander Mahoney (“Mahoney Decl.”), ¶ 2.) Nevertheless, due to scheduling constraints, Plaintiffs have not yet completed the deposition(s) referred to in their PMQ Deposition Notice. (Mahoney Decl., ¶ 3.) The parties are committed to working collaboratively to arrange and complete these depositions.

7 For these reasons, good cause exists to modify the fact discovery cut off deadline and related court deadlines.

9 IT IS SO STIPULATED.

10 Dated: January 14, 2026 LONGYEAR, LAVRA & CAHILL, LLP 12 By: /a/ Alexander Mahoney____________ VAN LONGYEAR NICOLE M. CAHILL 14 ALEXANDER MAHONEY Attorneys for Defendants, 15 County of Sacramento, Deputy Andrew Patterson, Deputy Andrew Falvey, Deputy 16 Najee Burge Dated: January 14, 2026 LAW OFFICE OF KELLAN PATTERSON

19 By: /s/ Kellan Patterson [as authorized on 1-14-26 KELLAN PATTERSON 20 Attorney for Plaintiffs

ORDER Good cause appearing, the parties’ stipulated request to modify the Court’s operative Scheduling Order (ECF No. 15) is GRANTED.

The relevant deadlines are ordered as follows: ° o Fact discovery cut off: April 14, 2026 o Expert witness disclosure: May 15, 2026 ’ o Supplemental expert disclosure: June 15, 2026 o Dispositive motion deadline: September 14, 2026 DATED: January 15, 2026 1] 7, 13 Chief United States District Judge STIPULATION AND ORDER TO MODIFY THE SCHEDULING ORDER