Opinion
2:20-cv-01157-TLN-DMC
06-23-2021
HEIDI FARRARA, an individual, Plaintiff, v. DAY WIRELESS SYSTEMS an Oregon corporation, inclusive, Defendants.
RORY C. QUINTANA, QUINTANA HANAFI, LLP, Attorneys for Plaintiff HEIDI FARRARA, TALIA L. DELANOY, ANNETTE L. ROSE, GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP, Attorneys for Defendant DAY MANAGEMENT CORPORATION dba DAY WIRELESS SYSTEMS.
RORY C. QUINTANA, QUINTANA HANAFI, LLP, Attorneys for Plaintiff HEIDI FARRARA, TALIA L. DELANOY, ANNETTE L. ROSE, GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP, Attorneys for Defendant DAY MANAGEMENT CORPORATION dba DAY WIRELESS SYSTEMS.
ORDER GRANTING JOINT REQUEST TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER
Troy L. Nunley United States District Judge.
On June 23, 2021, the Plaintiff Heidi Farrara and Defendant Day Management Corporation (collectively “the Parties”) filed a Joint Request to Modify the Scheduling Order requesting modification of the operative Scheduling Order (Dkt. 18) issued on March 10, 2021, by U.S. District Court Judge Troy L. Nunley. The Parties presented the following good cause in support of their request to modify the scheduling order:
1. On or about June 9, 2020, the Initial Pretrial Scheduling Order became order of the Court by Judge Troy Nunley [Dkt. 3].
2. On or about October 1, 2020, the Court issued a Minute Order advising the Parties to submit any request to modify the Court's Initial Pretrial Scheduling Order through a Joint Stipulation with specific deadlines [Dkt. 12].
3. In late 2020 and early 2021, the Parties moved forward with written and oral discovery. However, the Parties' ability to complete necessary discovery was significantly hampered and delayed by the COVID-19 pandemic. Accordingly, on or about March 10, 2021, the Parties jointly requested that this Court modify the scheduling order to allow additional time for discovery and trial preparation. The Court granted the Parties request and adopted the operative scheduling order. [Dkt. 18].
4. From March 2021 to the present, the Parties have continued to diligently pursue their respective discovery efforts. Plaintiff has continued to pursue oral discovery, including percipient witness depositions. Defendant has also produced additional documents pursuant to its initial disclosures. The Parties agree that each has further necessary non-expert discovery to complete before the pending discovery cut-off date;
5. The Parties further agree that they are engaging in early resolution discussions and appropriate mediators are limited in light of heightened demand. The Parties do not believe they will be able to schedule mediation, if any, until late January 2022 or February 2022 based on current mediator availability;
6. In light of the foregoing, the Parties jointly agree and hereby do stipulate that additional time is necessary to complete non-expert discovery, continue resolution discussions, and prepare this matter for trial. Accordingly, finding good cause based on the Parties' stipulation, the Court modifies the current scheduling order as follows:
| Matter | Current Date | Continued Date |
| Non-Expert Discovery Cutoff | July 6, 2021 | October 4, 2021 |
| Expert Witness Disclosure | September 2, 2021 | December 1, 2021 |
| Rebuttal Expert Witness Disclosure | November 3, 2021 | February 1, 2022 |
| Supplemental Disclosures and responses (including expert supplemental materials) | December 3, 2021 | March 3, 2022 |
| Dispositive Motion Deadline | February 1, 2022 | May 2, 2022 |
7. The Parties agree that additional time is needed to complete non-expert and expert discovery and engage in resolution discussions. The Parties agree that the requested continue is in the best interest of all Parties, and will not unduly prejudice any Party.
IT IS SO ORDERED.