From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Morgutia-Johnson v. City of Fresno

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
Jan 6, 2015
1:14-CV-00127 LJO-SKO (E.D. Cal. Jan. 6, 2015)

Opinion

          MANNING & KASS ELLROD, RAMIREZ, TRESTER, LLP, Courtney R. Arbucci, Mildred K. O'Linn, Esq., Courtney R. Arbucci, Esq., Attorneys for Defendants, CITY OF FRESNO, CHIEF JERRY DYER, SERGEANT LARRY HUSTEDDE, AND OFFICER JEFFREY KAISER.

          LAW OFFICES OF VICKI SARMIENTO AND JORGE GONZALEZ Jorge Gonzalez, Vicki Sarmiento, Esq. Jorge Gonzalez, Esq., Attorneys for Plaintiff, IDALIA J. MORGUTIA-JOHNSON.


          STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES AND JOINT REQUEST FOR ORDER CONTINUING AND RESETTING NON-EXPERT DISCOVERY DEADLINE DATE, NOT EFFECTING TRIAL DATE; ORDER

          SHEILA K. OBERTO, Magistrate Judge.

         TO THE HONORABLE COURT:

         By and through their counsel of record in this action, plaintiff IDALIA J. MORGUTIA-JOHNSON and defendants CITY OF FRESNO, CHIEF JERRY DYER, SERGEANT LARRY HUSTEDDE, AND OFFICER JEFFREY KAISER ("defendants") - the parties - by and through their respective attorneys of record, hereby stipulate for the purpose of jointly requesting that the honorable Court enter an Order continuing, resetting, and modifying the pending case management date as to the Non-Expert Discovery Deadline only, not changing the current trial date (and pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 16, 26, and 40, as well as, to the extent applicable, United States District Court, Eastern District of California Local Rule 143, 144, 240, and 281-285) as follows:

         GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT. have taken four depositions, including that of plaintiff. Defendants have noticed and anticipate taking further depositions of incident-witnesses and damages-witnesses, however, locating and scheduling those deponents has proved difficult. Plaintiff has noticed and scheduled the depositions of the defendant-officers taking into consideration their scheduling and availability issues. The earliest mutually available date is January 6, 2015.

         4. Discovery in this action has been delayed in part due to the issue of the potential substitution and anticipated withdrawal of plaintiff's counsel. Essentially, beginning about mid-August 2014, plaintiffs' counsel of record in this action advised defense counsel that they had been informed that their client was retaining substitute counsel for this matter and that plaintiffs' counsel of record were thus preparing to file a motion to withdraw. In mid-October 2014, plaintiff's counsel of record advised defendants' counsel of record that it appeared plaintiff had changed her mind and no longer planned to retain substitute counsel - and thus plaintiff's counsel of record would not be filing the anticipated withdrawal motion.

         5. The parties have met and conferred regarding an issue of plaintiff's juvenile court records that had been requested by defendants in preparation of this trial. Plaintiff's counsel intentionally objected to defendants' request and stipulation for the Court records and therefore, defendants filed the appropriate moving papers with the Fresno County Superior Court - Juvenile Division, on October 14, 2014, requesting the release of the records in order to obtain information relevant to the pending claims against defendants in this matter. That objection delayed production of records that are potentially pertinent to plaintiff's incident claims, particularly her malicious prosecution claims.

         6. In light of the above-mentioned issues, the parties hereby stipulate that there is Good Cause here for, and in good faith jointly request that, the Court continue the operative case management deadlines as to the non-expert discovery and expert disclosure deadline in this matter by 21 days in a manner comparable to the specific request herein after.

         STIPULATION FOR CONTINUANCE & SCHEDULING MODIFICATION.

         7. Accordingly, in light of the foregoing Good Cause, the parties hereby stipulate to and jointly request that the Court issue an Order modifying the operative Scheduling Order in this case, and the related case management dates, specifically to the non-expert discovery deadline, along the following lines and/or in a manner comparable to the following proposed amended schedule:

         

Case Management Event: Prior-Operative Date- NEW Date- Deadline: Deadline: Non-Expert Discovery Deadline January 5, 2015 January 26, 2015 Expert Disclosures January 16, 2015 January 26, 2015 Rebuttal-Supplemental Expert February 18, 2015 No Modification Disclosures Expert Discovery Deadline March 11, 2015 No Modification Non-Dispositive Motion Filing March 11, 2015 No Modification Deadline Dispositive Motion (MSJ) Filing March 18, 2015 No Modification Deadline Non-Dispositive Motion Hearing April 8, 2015 No Modification Deadline Dispositive Motion (MSJ) Hearing April 15, 2015 No Modification Deadline Settlement Conference April 13, 2015, 10:30 No Modification a.m., Ctrm 9 Final Pre-Trial Conference May 13, 2015, 8:15 No Modification a.m., Ctrm 4 TRIAL June 9, 2015, 8:30 No Modification a.m., Ctrm 4 (7-10 trial days)

         9. This Stipulation may be signed in counterpart and a facsimile or electronic signature shall be as valid as an original signature.

         IT IS SO STIPULATED.

         ORDER FOR MODIFICATION OF SCHEDULING ORDER

         PURSUANT TO THE STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES, after due consideration of all of the relevant pleadings, papers, and records in this action; and upon such other oral and documentary evidence or argument as was presented to the Court, pursuant to the Court's inherent and statutory powers, including not limited to the applicable provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and all applicable federal laws and Local Rules of the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California; Good Cause appearing therefor, and in furtherance of the interests of justice,

         IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

         1. The Court hereby orders that the Court's Scheduling Order of November 6, 2014 [Dkt. Doc. 19] and, to the extent applicable, the Court's Standing Order [Dkt. Doc. 3-1] and/or all prior scheduling orders issued in this action, are hereby modified, continued, and reset to the following case management schedule:

         

Case Management Event: Prior-Operative Date- NEW Date- Deadline: Deadline: Non-Expert Discovery Deadline January 5, 2015 January 26, 2015 Expert Disclosures January 16, 2015 January 26, 2015 Rebuttal-Supplemental Expert February 18, 2015 No Modification Disclosures Expert Discovery Deadline March 11, 2015 No Modification Non-Dispositive Motion Filing March 11, 2015 No Modification Deadline Dispositive Motion (MSJ) Filing March 18, 2015 No Modification Deadline Non-Dispositive Motion Hearing April 8, 2015 No Modification Deadline Dispositive Motion (MSJ) Hearing April 15, 2015 No Modification Deadline Settlement Conference April 13, 2015, 10:30 No Modification a.m., Ctrm 9 Final Pre-Trial Conference May 13, 2015, 8:15 No Modification a.m., Ctrm 4 TRIAL June 9, 2015, 8:30 No Modification a.m., Ctrm 4 (7-10 trial days)

         2. Nothing in this Order shall be construed as vacating, rescinding, amending, or modifying (in whole or in part) the Court's operative protective order re confidential documents [Dkt. Doc. 27].

         IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Morgutia-Johnson v. City of Fresno

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
Jan 6, 2015
1:14-CV-00127 LJO-SKO (E.D. Cal. Jan. 6, 2015)
Case details for

Morgutia-Johnson v. City of Fresno

Case Details

Full title:IDALIA J. MORGUTIA-JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF FRESNO, CHIEF JERRY…

Court:United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California

Date published: Jan 6, 2015

Citations

1:14-CV-00127 LJO-SKO (E.D. Cal. Jan. 6, 2015)