From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

D. B. v. City of Stockton

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Jun 10, 2022
2:21-cv-02154-TLN-DB (E.D. Cal. Jun. 10, 2022)

Opinion

2:21-cv-02154-TLN-DB

06-10-2022

D.B., a minor, by and through his guardian ad litem, Elisa Mulvihill, individually and as co-successor in interest to Decedent ANTWAUNE P. BURRISE, SR., et al, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF STOCKTON, et al. Defendants.

SANJAY S. SCHMIDT LAW OFFICE OF SANJAY S. SCHMIDT T. KENNEDY HELM, IV HELM LAW OFFICE, PC Attorneys for All Plaintiffs DANA A. SUNTAG (State Bar No. 125127) JOSHUA J. STEVENS (State Bar No. 238105) HERUM\CRABTREE\SUNTAG Attorneys for All Defendants


SANJAY S. SCHMIDT

LAW OFFICE OF SANJAY S. SCHMIDT

T. KENNEDY HELM, IV

HELM LAW OFFICE, PC

Attorneys for All Plaintiffs

DANA A. SUNTAG (State Bar No. 125127)

JOSHUA J. STEVENS (State Bar No. 238105)

HERUM\CRABTREE\SUNTAG

Attorneys for All Defendants

AMENDMENT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER MODIFYING INITIAL PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER (ECF NO. 25); DISCOVERY PLAN

[NO HEARING REQUESTED]

TROY L. NUNLEY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

Plaintiffs, D.B., a minor, by and through his Guardian Ad Litem (“GAL”), Elisa Mulvihill; K.B., a minor, by and through his GAL, Breanna Fuller; Ilia Burrise; Athena Burrise; Antwaune Burrise, Jr.; Rayjames Burrise; A.B., a minor, by and through her GAL, Tiana Franks, (all of whom bring suit in their individual capacity and as cosuccessors in interest to the Decedent, Antwaune Burrise, Sr.); and Stephanie Hatten, in her individual capacity (collectively referred to as “Plaintiffs”), on the one hand; and Defendants City of Stockton (the “City”); former Stockton Chief of Police Eric Jones; Officer David Wells; Officer Blake Epperson; and Officer John Griffin (collectively referred to as “Defendants”), on the other hand; all through their undersigned counsel of record, respectfully submit this Amendment to the Stipulation and Order to Modify Initial Pretrial Scheduling Order (ECF No. 25) and also their discovery plan.

RECITALS

A. On November 19, 2021, Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit.

B. On November 22, 2021, the Court issued an Initial Pretrial Scheduling Order (the “Scheduling Order”). (ECF No. 3.)

C. On March 9, 2022, the Court so ordered the parties' stipulation and proposed order to modify the Scheduling Order (the “Stipulation and Order Modifying the Scheduling Order”). (ECF No. 25).

D. After the parties submitted the stipulation to modify the Scheduling Order, they realized they had omitted from it the cutoff for expert discovery, and they have met and conferred and enter into this Amendment to add that date and request the Court so order it.

E. In addition, after the parties submitted the stipulation to modify the Scheduling Order, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss portions of the Complaint, scheduled for hearing on May 19, 2022. The motion has been fully briefed, and, by order issued on May 2, 2022, the Court vacated the hearing on the motion and submitted it without oral argument.

F. The Scheduling Order set a deadline for completion of non-exper discovery of 240 days after the date on which the last answer may be filed under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. By the Stipulation and Order Modifying the Scheduling Order, the parties intended to extend that deadline, especially because of the large amount of anticipated discovery, to provide more time to complete discovery. The Stipulation and Order Modifying the Scheduling Order proposed a deadline for nonexpert discovery of March 31, 2023, which the Court so ordered.

G. However, in light of the pending motion to dismiss and the large amount o discovery the parties now realize they may need to conduct, they believe the March 31, 2023, non-expert discovery deadline will not allow them sufficient time to conduct al necessary non-expert discovery. Therefore, by this stipulation, the parties request the Court again modify the deadline to complete non-expert discovery to the date that is 365 days from the date on which the last answer may be filed under the Federal Rules Consistent with this, the parties believe it is appropriate to extend all the successive deadlines that follow the deadline to complete non-expert discovery.

H. In addition, on April 15, 2022, the parties met and conferred by telephone as required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(f), and, as also required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(f), the parties have agreed on a discovery plan, and submit the following written repor outlining the discovery plan:

(i) The parties do not see a need to change the timing, form, o requirement for initial disclosures, and they agreed to serve their initial disclosures on April 29, 2022 (and have done so).
(ii) The parties agree fact discovery will be needed on all the parties claims and defenses, and that there is no need to conduct fact discovery in phases.
(iii) The parties do not anticipate any issues with the disclosure, discovery, or preservation of electronically stored information.
(iv) The parties intend to submit a proposed stipulated protective order regarding confidential documents, materials, and information.
(v) The parties agree that, given the large number of plaintiffs and percipient witnesses, the number of non-expert depositions should be increased to 30 per side.

STIPULATION

The parties, by and through their undersigned counsel, stipulate that the

Scheduling Order be further modified as follows:

Matter

Current Date

Proposed Date

Deadline to amend the complaint

4/15/2022

8/15/2022

Cutoff of Non-Expert Discovery

3/23/2023

The date that is 365 days after the last Answer may be filed under the Federal Rules

Deadline to designate expert witnesses

5/30/2023

60 days after the cutoff for non-expert discovery

Deadline to designate rebuttal expert witnesses

6/30/23

30 days after the deadline to designate expert witnesses

Deadline to complete expert discovery

Not yet set

60 days after the deadline to designate rebuttal expert witnesses

Deadline to file dispositive motions, and stipulated, modified briefing schedule

9/27/23

60 days after the deadline to complete expert discovery Plaintiffs' Opposition to any dispositive motions shall be due 60-days after such motions are filed Defendants' Reply shall be due 14 days after the filing of Plaintiffs' Opposition

Deadline to exchange supplemental disclosures and responses

10/3/2023

30 days after the deadline to file dispositive motions

Hearing on dispositive motions

11/2/23

To be set in accordance with Local Rule 230

ORDER

The Court, having considered the parties' Stipulation, and good cause appearing, rules as follows:

The Court finds the parties have shown good cause for the relief their Stipulation requests.

THEREFORE, the relief the parties request is GRANTED, and the Court modifies the Scheduling Order as follows:

Matter

Current Date

Proposed Date

Deadline to amend the complaint

4/15/2022

8/15/2022

Cutoff of Non-Expert Discovery

3/23/2023

The date that is 365 days after the last Answer may be filed under the Federal Rules

Deadline to designate expert witnesses

5/30/2023

60 days after the cutoff for non-expert discovery

Deadline to designate rebuttal expert witnesses

6/30/23

30 days after the deadline to designate expert witnesses

Deadline to complete expert discovery

Not yet set

60 days after the deadline to designate rebuttal expert witnesses

Deadline to file dispositive motions, and stipulated, modified briefing schedule

9/27/23

60 days after the deadline to complete expert discovery Plaintiffs' Opposition to any dispositive motions shall be due 60-days after such motions are filed Defendants' Reply shall be due 14 days after the filing of Plaintiffs' Opposition

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Deadline to exchange supplemental disclosures and responses

10/3/2023

30 days after the deadline to file dispositive motions

Hearing on dispositive motions

11/2/23

To be set in accordance with Local Rule 230


Summaries of

D. B. v. City of Stockton

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Jun 10, 2022
2:21-cv-02154-TLN-DB (E.D. Cal. Jun. 10, 2022)
Case details for

D. B. v. City of Stockton

Case Details

Full title:D.B., a minor, by and through his guardian ad litem, Elisa Mulvihill…

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Jun 10, 2022

Citations

2:21-cv-02154-TLN-DB (E.D. Cal. Jun. 10, 2022)