Opinion
2:19-cv-02343-TLN-AC
11-08-2021
FRANCISCO HURTADO, AN INDIVIDUAL, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA; CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL; EDGARDO YEPEZ AKA EDGARDO LOPEZ; AND DOES 1 THROUGH 100, INCLUSIVE, Defendants.
GUIZAR, HENDERSON & CARRAZCO, LLP, Kent M. Henderson, Humberto Guizar Kent M. Henderson Angel Carrazco, Jr. Attorneys for Plaintiff Francisco Hurtado ROB BONTA Attorney General of California, PETER A. MESHOT Supervising Deputy Attorney General LEEANN E. WHITMORE Deputy Attorney General Attorneys for Defendants State of California by and through California Highway Patrol and Edgardo Yepez
Action Filed: April 2, 2019
GUIZAR, HENDERSON & CARRAZCO, LLP, Kent M. Henderson, Humberto Guizar Kent M. Henderson Angel Carrazco, Jr. Attorneys for Plaintiff Francisco Hurtado
ROB BONTA Attorney General of California, PETER A. MESHOT Supervising Deputy Attorney General
LEEANN E. WHITMORE Deputy Attorney General Attorneys for Defendants State of California by and through California Highway Patrol and Edgardo Yepez
JOINT STIPULATION REGARDING MODIFICATION OF THE PROPOSED SCHEDULING ORDER AND ORDER
TROY L. NUNLEY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
TO THE CLERK OF THE COURT AND TO THE HONORABLE TROY L. NUNLEY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE:
The Court issued the original scheduling order in this case on January 29, 2021 based on the stipulation of the parties. (ECF No. 16). On July 29, 2021, the Court modified the scheduling order to allow the defense to schedule orthopedic and psychiatric examinations. (ECF No. 20). On September 10, 2021, the Court modified the scheduling order to allow the defense to take the deposition of one of Plaintiff's treating physicians, Dr. Bratton (who was out of the country) (ECF No. 22).
The parties have completed numerous depositions and written discovery, including Dr. Bratton's deposition. Plaintiff is continuing to treat for his injuries. In light of information received, the nature of Plaintiff's injuries, the voluminous medical records, the number of experts involved, the availability of the experts to complete the Rule 26 Expert Reports by the current deadline date and the number of Rule 26 Expert Reports to be completed by the various experts in this matter, the parties agree that they need a brief extension of time to disclose experts.
The parties, by and through their respective counsel, have agreed to modify the scheduling order dates to take place as follows:
Matter
Current Date
Requested New Date
Initial Rule 26 Expert Disclosure and Exchange of Initial Expert Reports
November 18, 2021
December 3, 2021
Rule 26 Rebuttal Expert Disclosure and Exchange of Rebuttal Expert Reports
December 9, 2021 December
27, 2021
Modification of the Court's scheduling order requires a showing of good cause, Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b), and good cause requires a showing of due diligence, 2 Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). To establish good cause, the party seeking the modification of the scheduling order must generally show that even with the exercise of due diligence, they cannot meet the requirement of this order. Id. The court may also consider the prejudice to the party opposing the modification. Id. If the party seeking to amend the scheduling order fails to show due diligence the inquiry should end and the court should not grant the motion to modify. Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002)
Here, the parties have diligently conducted discovery and worked on disclosure of experts but based on the information received, the nature of Plaintiff's injuries, the voluminous medical records, the number of experts involved, the availability of the experts to complete the Rule 26 Expert Reports by the current deadline date and the number of Rule 26 Expert Reports to be completed by the various experts in this matter, the parties cannot disclose experts on the current date of November 18, 2021 and need a brief continuance of the currently set dates. (The Rebuttal Expert Disclosure date would be moved also in tandem with the new Initial Expert Disclosure date as set forth in the Stipulation and [Proposed] Order).
The parties agree that the above modification of the scheduling order is necessary. 3
TO ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD
HEREIN:
The Court, having reviewed the Stipulation of the parties regarding scheduling, and good cause appearing therefore, hereby modifies the scheduling order as follows:
Matter=Current Date=New Date
Initial Rule 26 Expert Disclosure and Exchange of Initial Expert Reports =November 18, 2021= December 3, 2021
Rule 26 Rebuttal Expert Disclosure and Exchange of Rebuttal Expert Reports=December 9, 2021 =December 27, 2021
IT IS SO ORDERED: 5