Opinion
David C. Rancaño, Tejinderpal S. Sanghera, Violeta Diaz, RANCAÑO & RANCAÑO, Modesto, CA, Attorneys for Plaintiff RODOLFO BARRETO RAMIREZ.
Stuart D. Tochner, OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C., Los Angeles, CA, Jill V. Cartwright, OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C., San Francisco, CA, Attorneys for Defendant AMERICOLD LOGISTICS, LLC
STIPULATION TO MODIFY THE SCHEDULING ORDER TO EXTEND THE NON-EXPERT DISCOVERY DEADLINE; DECLARATION OF JILL V. CARTWRIGHT IN SUPPORT THEREOF; [PROPOSED] ORDER
SHEILA K. OBERTO, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff Rodolfo Barreto Ramirez and Defendant AmeriCold Logistics LLC, though their respective counsel, respectfully request the Court modify its pretrial scheduling order (ECF No. 14) to extend the deadline on non-expert discovery. Good cause exists to extend the non-expert discovery deadline.
1. The Parties request the Court extend the deadline for non-expert discovery to January 1, 2016. The current deadline is October 16, 2015.
2. The Parties are currently attempting to schedule mediation. Based on the potential mediators' schedule and the parties' schedules, mediation will likely take place in late November 2015. To avoid the cost of discovery while the Parties plan for and attend mediation, the Parties would like to stay non-expert discovery pending completion of the mediation. The Parties believe that staying mediation will help facilitate settlement. In order to stay discovery, the Parties need to continue the non-expert discovery until after mediation.
3. Extending the non-expert discovery cut-off date will give the Parties time to complete non-expert discovery if the case does not settle at mediation.
4. The Parties have only just been able to complete the depositions of the main witnesses in the case because of the difficulty in scheduling the depositions at a convenient time and date for the witnesses and counsel. The Parties delayed scheduling mediation until each Party was able to complete the depositions needed to participate meaningfully in mediation.
5. Because of the difficulty in scheduling the depositions of the main witnesses in the case, discovery was delayed and the Parties need additional time to complete all the depositions necessary for trial.
5. Continuing the non-expert discovery date will not affect any of the other dates in the Court's pretrial Scheduling Order and will not affect the trial date.
6. This is the Parties' first request to modify the Scheduling Order.
7. Therefore, pursuant to the Court's scheduling order (ECF No. 14) and Local Rule 143, the Parties herby submit this stipulation for modification of the pretrial scheduling order (ECF No. 14).
DECLARATION OF JILL V. CARTWRIGHT
I, Jill V. Cartwright, declare as follows:
1. I am an attorney at law, duly licensed to practice in the State of California, and I am an associate with the law firm of Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart, P.C. I am counsel of record for Defendant AmeriCold Logistics LLC in the above-captioned matter. The following is based on my personal knowledge, and if called upon to do so, I could and would competently testify thereto.
2. I submit this declaration in accordance with the Court's Scheduling Order (ECF No. 14), which states that stipulations to continue the dates in the Scheduling Order should be accompanied by affidavits or declarations.
3. The Parties are currently attempting to schedule mediation. Based on the potential mediators' schedule and the parties' schedules, mediation will likely take place in late November 2015. To avoid the cost of discovery while the Parties plan for and attend mediation, the Parties would like to stay non-expert discovery pending completion of the mediation. I believe that staying mediation will help facilitate settlement because it will save on discovery costs. In order to stay discovery, the Parties need to continue the non-expert discovery until after mediation.
4. Extending the non-expert discovery cut-off date will give the Parties time to complete non-expert discovery if the case does not settle at mediation.
5. The Parties have only just been able to complete the depositions of the main witnesses in the case because of the difficulty in scheduling the depositions at a convenient time and date for the witnesses and counsel. The Parties delayed scheduling mediation until each Party was able to complete the depositions needed to participate meaningfully in mediation.
6. Because of the difficulty in scheduling the depositions of the main witnesses in the case, discovery was delayed and the Parties need additional time to complete all the depositions necessary for trial.
7. Continuing the non-expert discovery date to January 1, 2016 will not affect any of the other dates in the Court's pretrial Scheduling Order and will not affect the trial date.
8. This is the Parties' first request to modify the Scheduling Order.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America and the State of California and the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct, and this declaration was executed on October 6, 2015 in San Francisco, California.
ORDER
Based on the parties' stipulation (Doc. 15), the Court modifies the February 12, 2015, scheduling order to grant the parties an extension of time to designate experts and supplemental experts. All other dates remain as set in the Court's February 12, 2015, scheduling order. (Doc. 14.)
Accordingly, discovery deadlines and motion filing deadlines are continued as follows:
Settlement Conference: November 23, 2015, at 10:00 a.m., Ctrm 9 (SAB)
before Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone
Non-Expert Discovery cutoff: January 1, 2016
Expert Disclosure: January 23, 2016
Supplemental Expert Disclosure: February 6, 2016
Expert Discovery cutoff: February 20, 2016
Non Dispositive Motions:
Filing: March 1, 2016
Hearing: March 30, 2016
Dispositive Motions:
Filing: March 1, 2016
Hearing: April 6, 2016
Pre-Trial Conference: May 18, 2016, at 2:00 p.m., Ctrm 7
Trial: June 28, 2016, at 8:30 a.m., in Ctrm 7
IT IS SO ORDERED.