From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Brock v. Cnty. of Fresno ex rel. Fresno Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Aug 3, 2021
1:18-cv-01615-DAD-EPG (E.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2021)

Opinion

1:18-cv-01615-DAD-EPG

08-03-2021

ERNEST O'NEIL RAHKIN BROCK, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF FRESNO on behalf of FRESNO COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, Defendant.


ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED REQUEST TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER

(ECF NO. 49)

On August 2, 2021, the parties filed a stipulated request to modify the scheduling order.(ECF No. 49). This is the parties' fifth such request. (See ECF Nos. 17 (stipulated first request), 19 (granting ECF No. 17), 26 (minute order noting second request, which was for an informal conference regarding scheduling issues), 27 (granting second request), 31 (stipulated third request), 33 (granting third request) 46 (stipulated fourth request), 47 (granting fourth request).

The parties filed an earlier request on July 30, 2021, requesting modifications to the scheduling order. (ECF No. 48). However, because that stipulation was not signed by all parties, the parties filed a fully signed version of the stipulation on August 2, 2021.

The parties' fifth request concern delays in expert reports. The parties state that they have completed all non-expert discovery but that with “scheduling conflicts with Plaintiff's several retained experts, Plaintiff has determined that it is not possible to obtain the rather extensive and detailed expert reports required per FRCP 26 (a)(2)(b) to designate by the August 6, 2021 deadline.” (ECF No. 49, p. 3). The parties request an extension of their expert and dispositive motion deadlines but do not request an extension of the pre-trial or trial dates.

On August 3, 2021, the Court conducted a telephonic status conference to discuss the request. (See ECF No. 50).

After hearing from the parties, the Court finds good cause to extend the deadlines. However, the Court considers the dates below firm. In addition, although the parties requested not to move the pretrial conference or trial, the Court will continue those dates as the parties have modified the dispositive motion filing deadline date.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Court's Scheduling Order is hereby modified as follows:

Event

Deadline

Amended Deadline

Designation of Expert Witnesses

August 6, 2021

October 6, 2021

Rebuttal Designation of Expert Witnesses

August 31, 2021

November 1, 2021

Expert Discovery

September 30, 2021

November 30, 2021

Deadline to File Dispositive Motions

October 29, 2021

January 21, 2022

Pre-Trial Conference

April 4, 2022 at 1:30 p.m.

June 27, 2022 at 1:30 p.m.

Trial

June 7, 2022 at 8:30 a.m.

August 30, 2022 at 8:30 a.m.

Additionally, no later than 14 days after any dispositive motions are ruled on, and if any claims remain, the parties shall email Courtroom Deputy Michelle Rooney at mrooney@caed.uscourts.gov regarding their intentions as to a settlement conference.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Brock v. Cnty. of Fresno ex rel. Fresno Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Aug 3, 2021
1:18-cv-01615-DAD-EPG (E.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2021)
Case details for

Brock v. Cnty. of Fresno ex rel. Fresno Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't

Case Details

Full title:ERNEST O'NEIL RAHKIN BROCK, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF FRESNO on behalf of…

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Aug 3, 2021

Citations

1:18-cv-01615-DAD-EPG (E.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2021)