J.M. v. Parlier Unified School District

Opinion

D daA llL enE @ L a. gA hL wL laE wN .c, oJ mR. , State Bar No. 145279 JOHN B. ROBINSON, State Bar No. 297065 jrobinson@aghwlaw.com 180 Montgomery Street, Suite 1200 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 697-2000 Facsimile: (415) 813-2045

Attorneys for Defendants CITY OF PARLIER and OFFICER NEIL O’BRIEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

J.M., a minor, Case No. 1:21-CV-0261-AWI-BAM Plaintiff, Hon. Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe v. PROPOSED STIPULATION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY AND DISPOSITIVE MOTION PARLIER UNIFIED SCHOOL DEADLINES; DECLARATION OF DALE L. OFFICER NEIL O’BRIEN, and GEORGE MODIFICATION OF SCHEDULING ORDER ORDER Defendants.

/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /

In Dkt. Number 36 issued March 9, 2022 the court issued its scheduling order setting February 14th, 2023 for closure of non-expert discovery. The parties have stipulated to extend the deadlines through dispositive motions and request the stipulation be granted for good cause as set forth in the attached declaration of Dale L. Allen, Jr. The new dates requested are as follow: Non-Expert Discovery Deadline - April 14, 2023 Expert Disclosure- June 14, 2023 Supplemental Expert Disclosure- July 14. 2023 Expert Discovery Deadline August 14, 2023 Pretrial motion filing Deadline- September 14, 2023 The stipulation to modify the scheduling order will not change the pretrial or trial dates. This is the first request by stipulation and good cause to extend dates filed in this matter.

Respectfully submitted, Dated: January 11, 2023 ALLEN, GLAESSNER,

By: /s/ Dale L. Allen Attorneys for Defendants CITY OF PARLIER and OFFICER NEIL O’BRIEN

Dated: January 11, 2023

By: /s/ Rebecca Coll Rebecca Mary Coll James A Quadra Attorneys for Plaintiff CITY OF PARLIER

Dated: January 11, 2023

By: /s/ Laura Wolfe Attorneys for Laura A. Wolfe Attorneys for Defendant Parlier Unified School District

DECLARATION OF DALE L. ALLEN, JR. IN SUPPORT OF MODIFICATION OF SCHEDULING ORDER I, Dale L. Allen, Jr. hereby declare; 1. I am an attorney at law in the State of California and accepted to practice in the Eastern District of California. 2. I am the attorney of record for the City of Parlier and Officer Neil O’Brien, defendants in this action. 3. Good cause exists for the modification for the scheduling order for the following reasons. 4. After a defense and indemnity was extended to Officer O’Brien as an employee of the City of Parlier under the terms of a contract with the Central San Joaquin Valley Risk Management Pool, and subsequent to the issuance of the scheduling order Dkt. #36 issued 3/9/22, the defense and indemnity was rescinded leading to a protracted dispute over coverage. This delayed discovery commencing until the issue was resolved and the defense of Mr. O’Brien was again extended on September 29, 2022. 5. By the time the defense of Mr. O’Brien was resolved Ms. Wolfe, representing the Parlier Unified School District had filed notice of unavailability for medical reasons. This further delayed moving forward with discovery. See Dkt. #35. 6. The parties have agreed to go to a settlement conference and desire to go to settlement conference before incurring fees and costs of depositions. 7. The dates proposed will not impact the current pretrial and trial dates. Respectfully submitted, Dated: January 11, 2023 ALLEN, GLAESSNER,

By: /s/ Dale L. Allen Attorneys for CITY OF PARLIER and OFFICER NEIL O’BRIEN Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, and good cause appearing, the request to modify the Scheduling Order and extend the deadlines through dispositive motions is GRANTED. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). The deadlines in the Scheduling Order (Doc. 36) are modified as follows: Non-Expert Discovery Deadline: April 14, 2023 Expert Disclosure: June 14, 2023 Supplemental Expert Disclosure: July 14. 2023 Expert Discovery Deadline: August 14, 2023 Pretrial Motion Filing Deadline: September 14, 2023 As stipulated, the pretrial and trial dates remain unchanged. The parties are reminded that settlement discussions generally do not constitute good cause justifying modification of a pretrial scheduling order. See, e.g., Gerawan Farming, Inc. v. Rehrig Pacific Co., No. 11-cv-01273-LJO-BAM, 2013 WL 1164941, *4 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 20, 2013). Should the parties desire the Court to schedule a settlement conference, they should contact the Courtroom Deputy at evaldez@caed.uscourts.gov. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 12, 2023 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE