Opinion
THERESA A. GOLDNER, COUNTY COUNSEL, MARK L. NATIONS, CHIEF DEPUTY (SBN 101838), Kern County Administrative Center, Bakersfield, CA, Attorneys for Defendants County of Kern, Tommy J. Robins, Jeremy Storar.
RODRIGUEZ & ASSOCIATES, Miguel Flores, Attorney for Plaintiffs Maria D. Chavez, and Rene Chavez.
STIPULATION TO CONTINUE DISCOVERY AND PRETRIAL DEADLINES AND TRIAL
JENNIFER L. THURSTON, Magistrate Judge.
The parties, by and through their attorneys of record, stipulate as follows: Depositions of independent witnesses that have been scheduled thus far by defendants have not gone forward due to the witnesses having relocated. One eyewitness, Yesenia Ocampo, was located in Oakland and served with a subpoena, but she has retained legal counsel and has declared herself unavailable for her scheduled deposition date of May 24. Her deposition is being rescheduled for sometime in July due to the congested calendars of counsel.
Due to the difficulty encountered thus far in locating some of the witnesses and in scheduling depositions, it has become increasingly apparent that the parties will not be able to complete discovery by the time of the scheduled cut-off date of September 6. Therefore, the parties agree to modify the current case schedule by extending the deadlines out 90 days as follows:
• Non-expert discovery cut-off be postponed from September 6, 2013 to December 5, 2013
• Expert disclosure be postponed from August 30, 2013 to November 28, 2013
• Supplemental expert disclosure be postponed from September 18, 2013 to December 17, 2013
• Expert discovery cut-off be postponed from October 4, 2013 to January 2, 2014
• Non-dispositive motion filing deadline be postponed from October 11, 2013 to January 9, 2014
• Non-dispositive motion hearing deadline be postponed from November 15, 2013 to February 13, 2014
• Dispositive motion filing deadline be postponed from December 6, 2013 to March 6, 2014
• Dispositive motion hearing deadline be postponed from January 21, 2014 to April 21, 2014
• Pretrial conference be postponed from March 6, 2014 to June 4, 2014
• Trial be postponed from April 22, 2014 to July 21, 2014
The parties all understand and agree that the proposed new dates are subject to modification by the court.
ORDER
Before the Court is the stipulation to amend the scheduling order. (Doc. 16) The stipulation indicates counsel does not believe they will be able to complete discovery within the scheduled period due to the difficulty in locating these witnesses and the busy calendars of counsel. (Doc. 15 1-2)
Notably, the stipulation fails to indicate when the parties discovered the impediments to completing the discovery in a timely fashion As of April 3, 2013, discovery was proceeding smoothly and the parties were beginning to schedule needed depositions of the parties and third-party witnesses. (Doc. 13 at 3)
In addition, out of fairness, the Court believes it is necessary to forewarn litigants that the Fresno Division of the Eastern District of California now has the heaviest District Court Judge caseload in the entire nation. While the Court will use its best efforts to resolve this case and all other civil cases in a timely manner, the parties are admonished that not all of the parties' needs and expectations may be met as expeditiously as desired. As multiple trials are now being set to begin upon the same date, parties may find their case trailing with little notice before the trial begins. The law requires that the Court give any criminal trial priority over civil trials or any other matter. The Court must proceed with a criminal trial even if a civil trial was filed earlier and set for trial first. Continuances of any civil trial under these circumstances will no longer be entertained, absent a specific and stated finding of good cause. All parties should be informed that any civil trial set to begin during the time a criminal trial is proceeding will trail the completion of the criminal trial.
The parties are reminded of the availability of a United States Magistrate Judge to conduct all proceedings in this action. A United States Magistrate Judge is available to conduct trials, including entry of final judgment, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 28 U.S.C. 636(c), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 73, and Local Rule 305. The same jury pool is used by both United States Magistrate Judges and United States District Court Judges. Any appeal from a judgment entered by a United States Magistrate Judge is taken directly to the United States Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit. However, the parties are hereby informed that no substantive rulings or decisions will be affected by whether a party chooses to consent.
Finally, the Fresno Division of the Eastern District of California, whenever possible, is utilizing United States Article III District Court Judges from throughout the nation as Visiting Judges. Pursuant to the Local Rules, Appendix A, reassignments will be random, and the parties will receive no advance notice before their case is reassigned to an Article III District Court Judge from outside of the Eastern District of California.
Therefore, the parties are directed to discuss with their clients the increased costs that will likely result from the new policies of this Court as well as the unpredictability of the reassignment of this case to a visiting District Judge and consider consenting to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction to conduct all further proceedings, including trial.
1. Within 10 days of the date of this order, counsel SHALL file a consent/decline form (provided by the Court at the inception of this case) indicating whether they will consent to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge.
2. The parties having stipulated and good cause appearing therefor, the Court ORDERS the scheduling order dated October 4, 2013 (Doc. 10) modified as follows:
a. Non-expert discovery SHALL be completed no later than December 5, 2013;
b. Joint expert disclosure SHALL be made no later than November 28, 2013;
c. Rebuttal expert disclosure SHALL be made no later than December 17, 2013;
d. Expert discovery SHALL be completed no later than January 2, 2014;
e. Non-dispositive motions SHALL be filed no later than January 9, 2014 and heard no later than February 6, 2014;
f. Dispositive motions SHALL be filed no later than February 21, 2014 and heard no later than April 10, 2014;
g. The pretrial conference is continued to June 4, 2014 at 8:30 a.m., courtroom 4;
h. The trial is continued to July 29, 2014 at 8:30 a.m., courtroom 4;
No further amendments to the scheduling order will be considered without a showing of exceptional good cause.
IT IS SO ORDERED.