Griffith v. Corcoran District Hospital et al
Filing
48
STIPULATION and ORDER Setting New Discovery Deadlines Pursuant to Order Continuing Trial Date signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 6/29/2011. Expert Disclosure due by 8/26/2011; Supplemental Expert Disclosure due by 9/15/2011; Nonexpert Discovery due by 10/18/2011; Expert Discovery due by 10/18/2011; Pretrial Motion filing deadline: 10/31/2011; Pretrial hearing deadline: 11/21/2011.(Bradley, A)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
Michael L. Farley, SBN 76368
Rhys C. Boyd-Farrell, SBN 252458
FARLEY LAW FIRM
108 West Center Avenue
Visalia, California 93291
Telephone: (559) 738-5975
Facsimile: (559) 732-2305
5
Attorneys for Plaintiff Lyle D. Griffith, M.D.
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
LYLE D. GRIFFITH, M.D., an individual,
Plaintiff,
12
13
v.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Case No. 1:09-CV-02132-LJO-GSA
STIPULATION AND ORDER SETTING
NEW DISCOVERY DEADLINES
PURSUANT TO ORDER CONTINUING
TRIAL DATE
CORCORAN DISTRICT HOSPITAL, a
district hospital; JONATHAN BRENN,
CEO of CORCORAN DISTRICT
HOSPITAL and an individual; DAVID
HILL, an individual; JAMES CARTER
THOMAS, M.D., an individual; LISA
IVERS, Chief Nursing Officer of
CORCORAN DISTRICT HOSPITAL and
an individual; SUE FAIRCHILD,
Operating Room Supervisor for
CORCORAN DISTRICT HOSPITAL and
an individual; and DOES 1 through 25,
inclusive
Defendants.
23
24
25
On May 12, 2011, Plaintiff, LYLE D. GRIFFITH (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and
26
Defendants, CORCORAN DISTRICT HOSPITAL, JONATHAN BRENN, JAMES CARTER
27
TOMAS, M.D., LISA IVERS, and SUE FAIRCHILD (hereinafter collectively “Defendants”),
28
hereby stipulated to continue the trial date to January 30, 2012, at 8:30 a.m., continue the pretrial
FARLEY LAW FIRM
108 W EST CENTER AVENUE
VISALIA, CA 93291
STIPULATION AND ORDER SETTING NEW DISCOVERY DEADLINES PURSUANT TO ORDER
CONTINUING TRIAL DATE
1
conference to December 19, 2011, at 8:15 a.m., and continue all other dates and deadlines
2
predicated on the trial date and pre-trial date accordingly.
3
On May 13, 2011, Judge O’Neill executed an Order continuing the trial date to January
4
30, 2012, at 8:30 a.m., continuing the pretrial conference to December 19, 2011, at 8:15 a.m., and
5
continuing and all other dates and deadlines predicated on the trial date and pre-trial date
6
accordingly.
7
8
9
The parties have scheduled mediation with the Hon. Raul A. Ramirez [Ret.], for August 9,
2011, and have agreed to suspend further discovery pending the mediation.
As a result of Judge O’Neill’s order, new dates need to be set for the expert disclosure
10
deadline, supplemental expert disclosure deadline, nonexpert discovery cutoff, expert discovery
11
cutoff, pretrial motion filing deadline and pretrial hearing deadline.
12
13
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the new deadlines for the expert disclosure, supplemental expert
14
disclosure, nonexpert discovery cutoff, expert discovery cutoff, pretrial motion filing and pretrial
15
hearing are as follows:
16
17
Expert disclosure:
August 26, 2011
18
Supplemental expert disclosure:
September 15, 2011
19
Expert discovery cutoff:
October 18, 2011
20
Nonexpert discovery cutoff:
October 18, 2011
21
Pretrial motion filing deadline:
October 31, 2011
22
Pretrial hearing deadline:
November 21, 2011
23
24
APPROVED BY COUNSEL:
25
26
27
DATED: _______June 27, 2011____
By:___/s/ Rhys C. Boyd-Farrell______
Rhys C. Boyd-Farrell, Esq.
Attorney for Plaintiff
28
FARLEY LAW FIRM
108 W EST CENTER AVENUE
VISALIA, CA 93291
2
ORDER SETTING NEW DISCOVERY DEADLINES PURSUANT TO ORDER CONTINUING TRIAL DATE
1
DATED: _______June 27, 2011____
2
By:___/s/ Michael Popcke__________
Michael Popcke, Esq.
Attorney for Defendants
3
4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
5
6
DATED: June 29, 2011
7
/s/
Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
FARLEY LAW FIRM
108 W EST CENTER AVENUE
VISALIA, CA 93291
3
ORDER SETTING NEW DISCOVERY DEADLINES PURSUANT TO ORDER CONTINUING TRIAL DATE
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
