From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Tri-Dam v. Matityahu

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA FRESNO DIVISION
Jul 17, 2012
Case No. 1:11-cv-01512-AWI-SMS (E.D. Cal. Jul. 17, 2012)

Opinion

Case No. 1:11-cv-01512-AWI-SMS

07-17-2012

TRI-DAM, Plaintiff, v. AARON MATITYAHU and NADINE MATITYAHU, Defendants.

DOWNEY BRAND LLP KEVIN M. SEIBERT (Bar No. 119356) THOMAS E. MARRS (Bar No. 252485) Attorneys for Plaintiff TRI-DAM


DOWNEY BRAND LLP

KEVIN M. SEIBERT (Bar No. 119356)

THOMAS E. MARRS (Bar No. 252485)

Attorneys for Plaintiff

TRI-DAM

STIPULATION AND ORDER

CONTINUING NON-EXPERT

DISCOVERY AND NON-DISPOSITIVE

MOTION FILING DEADLINES


(Doc. 17)

Plaintiff TRI-DAM ("Plaintiff") and defendants AARON MATITYAHU and NADINE MATITYAHU ("Defendants"), through their respective counsel, hereby submit the following Stipulation and Proposed Order Continuing the Non-Expert Discovery and Non-Dispositive Pre-Trial Motions Deadlines.

RECITALS

1. This action commenced on September 6, 2011, and the Court held a scheduling conference on December 15, 2011.

2. On December 19, 2011, this Court entered its Scheduling Order providing, among other things, for an August 3, 2012 deadline to complete non-expert discovery, and a September 21, 2012 deadline to file non-dispositive pre-trial motions, including any discovery motions.

3. On December 21, 2011, this case was reassigned to U.S. District Judge Anthony W. Ishii and U.S. Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder.

4. The parties have exchanged written discovery but have not yet taken any depositions.

5. After meeting and conferring on a mutually agreeable date, Plaintiff's counsel noticed the Defendants' depositions for July 13, 2012. Defendants' counsel subsequently informed Plaintiff's counsel that his clients were not available for deposition on July 13, 2012, due to a pre-planned vacation. Defendants' counsel also informed Plaintiff's counsel that he planned to take Plaintiff's deposition. However, given the calendar conflicts of the parties and their counsel, including the fact that Defendants are currently on vacation out of town, scheduling all of the parties' depositions prior to the August 3, 2012 non-expert discovery deadline is no longer feasible.

6. The parties have not filed any motions with the Court in this action. However, in the event a discovery motion is necessary, the deadline to file non-dispositive pre-trial motions, including discovery motions, should be continued until after the deadline to conduct non-expert discovery.

7. The parties have not sought or obtained any prior extensions of time in this case.

8. The parties are currently meeting and conferring on new dates for the Defendants' depositions. However, motions to compel depositions will likely be required in the event the deadline to complete non-expert discovery is not continued.

9. Accordingly, the parties believe good cause exists for a continuance of the current August 3, 2012 deadline to conduct non-expert discovery to October 5, 2012, and also for a continuance of the corresponding September 21, 2012 deadline to file non-dispositive pre-trial motions, including any discovery motions, to October 19, 2012.

STIPULATION

Based on the foregoing recitals, the parties hereby STIPULATE that:

1. The deadline to complete non-expert discovery is continued from August 3, 2012 to October 5, 2012.

2. The deadline to file non-dispositive pre-trial motions, including any discovery motions, is continued from September 21, 2012 to October 19, 2012.

3. This continuance of the deadlines to conduct non-expert discovery and file non-dispositive pre-trial motions, including any discovery motions, will not affect any other deadlines in this action.

4. All remaining dates and deadlines as set by the Court in its December 19, 2011 Scheduling Order are otherwise unaffected by this Stipulation and Proposed Order.

IT IS SO STIPULATED, THROUGH COUNSEL OF RECORD.

DOWNEY BRAND LLP

By: ____________________________

THOMAS E. MARRS

Attorney for Plaintiff

TRI-DAM

LAW OFFICE OF KENNETH M. FOLEY

By: Kenneth M. Foley (as authorized on 7/11/12)

KENNETH M. FOLEY

Attorney for Defendants AARON MATITYAHU

and NADINE MATITYAHU

ORDER

This matter came before the Court on the parties' Stipulation and Proposed Order Continuing the Non-Expert Discovery and Non-Dispositive Pre-Trial Motions Deadlines. For the reasons stated in the Stipulation and for good cause showing, the Court ADOPTS the Stipulation and GRANTS the relief requested therein.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the non-expert discovery deadline is CONTINUED from August 3, 2012 to October 5, 2012, and the non-dispositive motion filing deadline is CONTINUED from September 21, 2012 to October 19, 2012. All remaining deadline dates set by the Court's December 19, 2011 Scheduling Order (Doc. 13) remain in full force and effect and are otherwise unaffected by this Order. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Sandra M. Snyder

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE


Summaries of

Tri-Dam v. Matityahu

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA FRESNO DIVISION
Jul 17, 2012
Case No. 1:11-cv-01512-AWI-SMS (E.D. Cal. Jul. 17, 2012)
Case details for

Tri-Dam v. Matityahu

Case Details

Full title:TRI-DAM, Plaintiff, v. AARON MATITYAHU and NADINE MATITYAHU, Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA FRESNO DIVISION

Date published: Jul 17, 2012

Citations

Case No. 1:11-cv-01512-AWI-SMS (E.D. Cal. Jul. 17, 2012)