Opinion
2:08-cv-01129-MJP
07-30-2012
THOMAS A. HIGHTOWER, Plaintiff, v. JAMES TILTON, et al., Defendants.
KAMALA D. HARRIS Attorney General of California MISHA D. IGRA Supervising Deputy Attorney General GREGORYG. GOMEZ Deputy Attorney General Attorneys for Grannis, Tilton, Campbell, Fox, Bunnell, Montanez, Reaves, Subia, Huerta-Garcia, Reyes, Griffin, Gutierrez, Mwangi, Lewis and Rodriquez Respectfully submitted, Dario A. Machleidt Counsel for Plaintiff
KAMALA D . HARRIS, State Bar No . 146672
Attorney General of California
MISHA D . IGRA, State Bar No . 208711
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
GREGORY G . GOMEZ, State Bar No . 242674
Deputy Attorney General
1300 I Street , Suite 125
P.O. Box 944255
Sacramento , CA 94244-2550
Telephone : (916) 324-3866
Fax : (916) 324-5205
E- mail : Gregory . Gomez @ doj . ca . gov
Attorneys for Grannis, Tilton, Campbell, Fox,
Bunnell, Montanez, Reaves, Subia, Huerta-Garcia,
Reyes, Griffin, Gutierrez, Mwangi, Lewis and
Rodriquez
STIPULATION TO MODIFY
SCHEDULING ORDER AND
PROPOSED ORDER
The parties, by and through their attorneys of record, stipulate to an extension of the discovery deadline as set forth in the order issued on May 8, 2012 (ECF No. 86), to enable the parties to complete written discovery, to meet and confer, to conduct depositions following receipt of responses to written discovery, and to provide sufficient time to prepare and file any necessary motions.
Plaintiff filed his second amended complaint on October 20, 2011, alleging that his detention in administrative segregation and placement in the "A2B" prisoner group violated his rights under federal and state law. (ECF No. 77.)
Defendants moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint on November 3, 2011, the motion was argued, and the Court partially granted Defendants' motion to dismiss by dismissing certain claims. (ECF No. 78, 80, 82, 84.)
The Court issued its discovery and scheduling order on May 8, 2012 (ECF No. 86), and set the discovery deadline to be September 7, 2012. On May 29, 2012, Plaintiff's counsel propounded Plaintiff's first set of interrogatories, and first requests for production and admission. On June 6, 2012, Defendants' counsel propounded requests for production and first sets of interrogatories.
After meeting and conferring on July 9, 2012, the parties agreed that each needed an extension of time to respond to the already-served discovery requests because of workload and anticipated difficulties in obtaining responses. Defendants' counsel determined that they require an extension of time to August 1, 2012, to respond to Plaintiff's first sets of discovery. And Plaintiff's counsel identified that he requires an extension of time to September 7, 2012, to respond to Defendants' first sets of discovery.
Counsel for the parties also agreed to request a modification of the scheduling order, in order to extend the discovery deadline to October 1, 2012, so that the parties have sufficient time to meet and confer, conduct depositions following receipt of responses to written discovery, and to prepare and file any necessary discovery motions.
In the afternoon of July 9, 2012, Plaintiff's counsel served Plaintiff's second requests for production on Defendants. After discussing Plaintiff's second requests for production, the parties agreed that Defendants shall have additional time, up to and including September 7, 2012, to respond to this additional discovery.
The parties are completing their responses to the discovery requests, and anticipate that after completion, the issues will be significantly narrowed. Such narrowing will facilitate productive depositions, summary judgment, and trial.
Defendants have good cause to request additional time to prepare their responses to Plaintiff's discovery requests, due to difficulties in contacting and obtaining documents from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, and in light of to Defense counsel's workload. Plaintiff has good cause to request additional time to prepare his responses to Defendants' discovery requests, due to Plaintiff being incarcerated and not readily available to communicate with his counsel, and logistical concerns in delivering documents for review.
Accordingly, the parties agree to the following terms and request, if acceptable to the Court, modification of the discovery schedule as follows:
(1) Defendants shall respond to Plaintiff's first sets of discovery on or before August 1, 2012;
(2) Plaintiff shall respond to Defendants' first sets of discovery on or before September 7, 2012; and
(3) Defendants shall respond to Plaintiff's second set of requests for production on or before September 7, 2012.
(4) Paragraph 6 of the discovery and scheduling order issued on May 8, 2012 (ECF No. 86), is modified such that the parties may conduct discovery until October 1, 2012.
Respectfully submitted,
KAMALA D. HARRIS
Attorney General of California
MISHA D. IGRA
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
________________
GREGORYG. GOMEZ
Deputy Attorney General
Attorneys for Grannis, Tilton, Campbell,
Fox, Bunnell, Montanez, Reaves, Subia,
Huerta-Garcia, Reyes, Griffin, Gutierrez,
Mwangi, Lewis and Rodriquez
Respectfully submitted,
________________
Dario A. Machleidt
Counsel for Plaintiff
IT IS SO ORDERED:
________________
Marsha J. Pechman
united States District Judge