Grizzle v. San Diego, County of

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. California
DecidedFebruary 18, 2021
Docket3:17-cv-00813
StatusUnknown

This text of Grizzle v. San Diego, County of (Grizzle v. San Diego, County of) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Grizzle v. San Diego, County of, (S.D. Cal. 2021).

Opinion

1 oe

3 . □ 4 . 5

7 , . 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 || ELLIOT SCOTT GRIZZLE, Case No.: 17-cv-00813-JLS-RBM 12 Plaintiff, ORDER: 13 || V. 14 || COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, etal., FOR CONTINUANCE: 15 . Defendants. □ 16 AND 17 || | (2) SECOND AMENDED 18 SCHEDULING ORDER 19 [Docs. 127, 130] 20 21 Before the Court is Plaintiff Elliot Scott Grizzle (“Plaintiff”) and Defendants County 22 San Diego, Sheriff William Gore, Lieutenant Lena Lovelace, and Sergeant Aaron 23 ||Boorman’s (collectively “Defendants”) Joint Application to Extend Trial and Pretrial 24 || Deadlines by Sixty Days (“Joint Motion”). (Doc. 130.) The Joint Motion requests that the 25 ||Court continue the dates set forth in the December 2, 2020 First Amended Scheduling 26 || Order (“Scheduling Order”) (Doc. 127) by sixty days. (Jd. at 1.) This is the parties’ second 27 ||request for continuance. (/d. at 2.) The parties allege good cause exists for a continuance, 28 because Plaintiff's incarcerated status has resulted in delays preventing the timely

1 ||completion of written discovery. (/d.) Plaintiff's lack of discovery responses prevents 2 ||Defendants from completing written or oral discovery before the current discovery cutoff 3 date. Ud.) The parties have allegedly met and conferred regarding discovery issues, served 4 || initial disclosures, filed a joint protective order, and exchanged written discovery requests, 5 ||Ud.) The parties allege additional time is necessary to complete written discovery, to 6 || schedule and address issues relating to depositions, and timely comply with other pretrial 7 || deadlines. (Id. at 3-4.) 8 A scheduling order may be modified only upon a showing of good cause and with 9 judge’s consent. FED. R. Ci. P. 16(b)(4); see, e.g., Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992) (stating, “the focus of [the good cause] inquiry is 11 upon.the moving party’s reasons for seeking modification.”). This case was in the initial 12 || pleading stage from 2017-2020 (Docs. 1-121). However, the parties have acted diligently 13 ||since Defendants answered the Third Amended Complaint, and they have attempted to 14 ||comply with the Scheduling Order deadlines. (See Docs. 123-27.) The Court takes note 15 || of the parties’ diligence and the challenges that the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic presents 16 ||to the discovery process. A continuance of time allows the parties additional time to 17 || prepare for trial, explore potential pretrial settlement, and comply with deadlines, all while 18 navigating litigation amid the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. As such, good cause exists 19 grant a continuance of time. | 20 Accordingly, the Joint Motion (Doc. 130) is GRANTED. The December 2, 2020 21 Scheduling Order (Doc. 127) is hereby AMENDED AS FOLLOWS: 22 1. All fact discovery shall be completed by all parties by May 14, 2021. 23 ||“Completed” means that all discovery under Rules 30-36 of the Federal Rules of Civil 24 ||Procedure, and discovery subpoenas under Rule 45, must be initiated a sufficient period of 25 time in advance of the cut-off date, so that it may be completed by the cut-off date, taking 26 account the times for service, notice and response as set forth in the Federal Rules of 27 ||Civil Procedure. Counsel shall promptly and in good faith meet and confer with 28 || regard to all discovery disputes in compliance with Civil Local Rule 26.1(a). The Court

I |}expects counsel to make every effort to resolve all disputes without court intervention 2 ||through the meet and confer process. If the parties reach an impasse on any discovery 3 || issue, counsel shall file an appropriate motion within the time limit and procedures outlined 4 the undersigned magistrate judge’s chambers rules. A failure to comply in this regard 5 || will result in a waiver of a party’s discovery issue. Absent an order of the Court, no 6 ||stipulation continuing or altering this requirement will be recognized by the Court. 7 2. The parties shall designate their respective experts in writing by June 18, 8 ||2021. The parties must identify any person who may be used at trial to present evidence 9 || under to Rules 702, 703 or 705 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. This requirement is not 10 limited to retained experts. The date for exchange of rebuttal experts shall be by July 2, 11 |}2021. The written designations shall include the name, address and telephone number of 12 ||the expert and a reasonable summary of the testimony the expert is expected to provide. 13 || The list will include the normal rates the expert charges for deposition and trial testimony. 14 3. By July 30, 2021, each party shall comply with the disclosure provisions in 15 ||Rule 26(a)(2)(A) and (B) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This disclosure 16 ||requirement applies to all persons retained or specially employed to provide expert 17 testimony, or whose duties as an employee of the party regularly involve the giving of 18 expert testimony. Except as provided in the paragraph below, any party that fails to 19 make these disclosures shall not, absent substantial justification, be permitted to use 20 || evidence or testimony not disclosed at any hearing or at the time of trial. In addition, 21 Court may impose sanctions as permitted by FED. R. Civ. P. 37(c). 22 4, Any party shall supplement its disclosure regarding contradictory or rebuttal 23 || evidence under FED. R. Clv. P. 26(a)(2)(D) by August 13, 2021. 24. 5. All expert discovery shall be completed by all parties by September 10, 2021. 25 ||The parties shall comply with the same procedures set forth in the paragraph governing 26 || fact discovery. . 27 6. Failure to comply with this section or any other discovery order of the court 28 ||may result in the sanctions provided for in FED. R. Civ. P. 37, including a prohibition on

1 introduction of experts or other designated matters in evidence. 2 7. All other pretrial motions must be filed by October 8, 2021. Counsel for the 3 ||moving party must obtain a motion hearing date from the law clerk of the judge who will 4 ||hear the motion. The period of time between the date you request a motion date and the 5 hearing date may vary from one district judge to another. Please plan accordingly. Failure 6 | to make a timely request for a motion date may result in the motion not being heard. 7 Motions in limine are to be filed as‘ directed in the Civil Local Rules, or as otherwise set 8 || by the district judge. 9 8. A Mandatory Settlement Conference shall be conducted on December 15, 10 |}2021 at 9:30 a.m. in the chambers of Magistrate Judge Ruth Bermudez Montenegro, ‘11 |/2003 W. Adams Ave., Suite 220, El Centro, California 92243. Counsel or any party 12 ||representing himself or herself shall submit confidential settlement briefs directly to 13 chambers by December 3, 2021. All parties are ordered to read and to fully comply with 14 Chamber Rules of the assigned magistrate judge. 15 9. Counsel shall file their Memoranda of Contentions of Fact and Law and take

16 || any other action required by Civil Local Rule 16. 1(f)(2) by J anuary 7, 2022. 17 10. Counsel shall comply with the pre-trial disclosure requirements of FED, R. 18 || P. 26(a)(3) by January 7, 2022. Failure to comply with these disclosure requirements 19 || could result in evidence preclusion or other sanctions under FED. R. CIv. P, 37. 20 11. Counsel shall meet and take the action required by Civil Local Rule 16.1(£)(4) 21 |iby January 14, 2022.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Grizzle v. San Diego, County of, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grizzle-v-san-diego-county-of-casd-2021.