From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lanier v. City of Fresno

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Sep 8, 2011
CASE NO. 1:10-CV-01120-LJO-SKO (E.D. Cal. Sep. 8, 2011)

Opinion

CASE NO. 1:10-CV-01120-LJO-SKO

09-08-2011

KHALID LANIER, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF FRESNO, a municipal entity, POLICE OFFICER ALFONSO CASTILLO, in his individual and official capacities, POLICE OFFICER STEPHEN TAYLOR in his individual and official capacities, COUNTY OF FRESNO, and DOES 1-100, Jointly and Severally, Defendants.

WEAKLEY & ARENDT, LLP Roy C. Santos James D. Weakley Attorneys for Defendant, Officer Alfonso Castillo HELBRAUN LAW FIRM David M. Helbraun Attorney for Plaintiff


James D. Weakley, Esq. Bar no. 082853

Roy C. Santos, Esq. Bar No. 259718

WEAKLEY & ARENDT, LLP

Attorneys for Defendant, OFFICER ALFONSO CASTILLO

STIPULATION AND ORDER AMENDING THE SCHEDULING ORDER

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED between the parties, through their respective counsel, and ordered by this Court, that the Scheduling Order, Doc. No. 44, be amended and that the discovery deadlines, dispositive, and non-dispositive motion filing deadline be rescheduled. There is good cause for extending these dates. First, given defense counsel's need to transition the Honorable Rosemary T. McGuire cases to other attorney's within the firm and the resulting heavy caseload during this transition period scheduling discovery became problematic. In hindsight it appears that the deadlines agreed to in the Scheduling Order were a bit too optimistic. Also, drafting the stipulation and protective order so as to contain mutually agreeable language protecting confidential City of Fresno Police Department policies and procedure and confidential training records of Defendant and along with providing these confidential materials to Plaintiff's counsel prior to his conducting of the deposition of Defendant has caused some delays in the discovery process. Furthermore, the proposed amended deadlines do not alter the pretrial conference nor the trial date as agreed to in the Scheduling Order, Doc. No. 44.

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED:

+---------------------------------------------+ ¦DEADLINE ¦CURRENT ¦NEW ¦ +-----------------------+----------+----------¦ ¦Non-Expert Discovery ¦9/15/2011 ¦11/30/2011¦ +-----------------------+----------+----------¦ ¦Expert Disclosure ¦9/30/2011 ¦11/30/2011¦ +-----------------------+----------+----------¦ ¦Supplemental Expert ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦10/10/2011¦12/15/2011¦ ¦Disclosure ¦ ¦ ¦ +-----------------------+----------+----------¦ ¦Expert Discovery ¦10/24/2011¦12/30/2011¦ +-----------------------+----------+----------¦ ¦Non-Dispositive Motions¦10/19/2011¦11/30/2011¦ +-----------------------+----------+----------¦ ¦Dispositive Motions ¦10/31/2011¦1/16/2012 ¦ +-----------------------+----------+----------¦ ¦Settlement Conference ¦10/27/2011¦2/29/2012 ¦ +---------------------------------------------+

IT IS SO STIPULATED:

WEAKLEY & ARENDT, LLP

Roy C. Santos

James D. Weakley

Attorneys for Defendant,

Officer Alfonso Castillo

HELBRAUN LAW FIRM

David M. Helbraun

Attorney for Plaintiff

ORDER

The parties' request for a modification of the schedule is GRANTED. With the exception of the proposed date for the settlement conference, the dates proposed by the parties are adopted by the Court. The modified schedule is set forth below:

+--------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦Event ¦Previous Deadline ¦Revised Deadline ¦ +-----------------------+-------------------+------------------¦ ¦Non Expert Discovery ¦September 15, 2011 ¦November 30, 2011 ¦ +-----------------------+-------------------+------------------¦ ¦Expert Disclosure ¦September 30, 2011 ¦November 30, 2011 ¦ +-----------------------+-------------------+------------------¦ ¦Supp. Expert Disclosure¦October 10, 2011 ¦December 15, 2011 ¦ +-----------------------+-------------------+------------------¦ ¦Expert Discovery ¦October 24, 2011 ¦December 30, 2011 ¦ +-----------------------+-------------------+------------------¦ ¦Non-Dispositive Motions¦October 19, 2011 ¦November 30, 2011 ¦ +-----------------------+-------------------+------------------¦ ¦Dispositive Motions ¦October 31, 2011 ¦January 16, 2012 ¦ +-----------------------+-------------------+------------------¦ ¦Settlement Conference ¦October 27, 2011 ¦February 2, 2012 ¦ +--------------------------------------------------------------+

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Sheila K. Oberto

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE


Summaries of

Lanier v. City of Fresno

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Sep 8, 2011
CASE NO. 1:10-CV-01120-LJO-SKO (E.D. Cal. Sep. 8, 2011)
Case details for

Lanier v. City of Fresno

Case Details

Full title:KHALID LANIER, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF FRESNO, a municipal entity, POLICE…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Sep 8, 2011

Citations

CASE NO. 1:10-CV-01120-LJO-SKO (E.D. Cal. Sep. 8, 2011)