Perez, et al v. State of California, et al
Filing
24
ORDER DENYING stipulated request to modify the scheduling order signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 11/22/2011. (Timken, A)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
TINA PEREZ, et al.,
CASE NO. 1:10-cv-01094-AWI-SKO
11
12
ORDER DENYING STIPULATED
REQUEST TO MODIFY THE
SCHEDULING ORDER
Plaintiffs,
13
v.
14
(Docket No. 23)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,
15
16
Defendants.
/
17
18
On November 17, 2011, the parties filed a request to modify the scheduling order so that they
19
would have additional time to complete discovery due to Plaintiffs' difficulty in setting up a
20
deposition of a correctional officer who shot decedent Manual Yanis. The correctional officer has
21
been out of work on extended medical leave. As such, the parties request the following changes:
22
Deadline
Current Deadline
Proposed Deadline
23
1.
Non-Expert Discovery
November 15, 2011
December 15, 2011
24
2.
Expert Disclosure
November 18, 2011
December 18, 2011
25
3.
Supp. Exp. Discl.
December 2, 2011
January 2, 2012
26
4.
Exp. Discovery
January 6, 2012
February 5, 2012
27
5.
Non-Disp. Filing Deadline January 13, 2012
February 12, 2010
28
6.
Disp. Mot. Filing Deadline March 3, 2012
April 3, 2012
1
The parties request no change to the date of the pretrial conference (June 6, 2012) and the trial date
2
(July 30, 2012).
3
The parties request a dispositive motion filing deadline of April 3, 2012. Pursuant to Local
4
Rule 230(b), the parties must provide at least a twenty-eight (28) day notice after service and filing
5
of a motion before the motion can be heard. Further, Chief District Judge Ishii schedules civil
6
motions for hearing on Mondays. As such, the proposed dispositive motion filing deadline of April
7
3, 2012, means that the earliest date a motion could be heard is Monday, May 7, 2012. The proposed
8
filing deadline does not leave sufficient time between a dispositive motion hearing date and the
9
pretrial conference date of June 6, 2012, for the Court to consider and make a determination on any
10
motions before the Court.
11
The Court is willing to accommodate the parties' request for a modified schedule, but cannot
12
adopt the dates proposed in the stipulation. If the parties wish to re-file their request for an extension
13
of the schedule, they should propose dates that maintain at least seven (7) weeks between the hearing
14
date for the dispositive motions and the pretrial conference and at least eight (8) weeks between the
15
date of the pretrial conference and the date of the trial.
16
17
IT IS SO ORDERED.
18
Dated:
ie14hj
November 22, 2011
/s/ Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
]]>
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?
