J.P. v. City of Stockton

Opinion

1 || DANA A. SUNTAG (State Bar #125127) JOSHUA J. STEVENS (State Bar #238105) 2 || HERUM\CRABTREE\SUNTAG, LLP 5757 Pacific Avenue, Suite 222 3 Stockton, California 95207 4 Telephone: (209) 472-7700 dsuntag @herumcrabtree.com 5 stevens @herumcrabtree.com 6 || Attorneys for All Defendants 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA J.P., a minor, by and through CHANNY SOK- ) Case No.: 2:21-cv-00788-WBS-AC 10 || HANG as guardian, ) ) STIPULATION AND ORDER TO 11 Plaintiff, ) MODIFY PRETRIAL SCHEDULING VS. ORDER, INCLUDING TRIAL DATE 12 CITY OF STOCKTON, et al. [No hearing required] 13 Defendants. ) 14 ) 15 16 17 18 19 ) 20 ||? 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 \CRABTREE \SUNTAG

1 This Stipulation is respectfully submitted by all named parties: Plaintiff J.P., by an 2 || through Channy Sok-Hang as guardian, on the one hand; and Defendants City of Stockton (als 3 || named as “Stockton Police Department”) (the “City”), Chief of Police Stanley McFadden, an 4 || Officer Jorge Andrade, on the other hand, all through their undersigned counsel of record. 5 RECITALS 6 A. On May 3, 2021, Plaintiff filed this lawsuit. B. On May 27, 2022, the Court issued a Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order (EC 7 No. 52), scheduling a jury trial to begin on June 4, 2024, with a 14 day estimate. 8 C. There is another lawsuit pending in this Court, also before the Honorable Willia ? B. Shubb, entitled Karen Sutherland, et al. v. City of Stockton, et al., Eastern District o 10 || California Case No. 2:21-cv-01855-WBS-AC (the “Sutherland Case’). The City of Stockton is 11 || defendant in both that case and in the instant case. Moreover, the same defense counsel in th 12 || instant case are also defense counsel in the Sutherland Case. 13 D. On July 12, 2022, the Court in the Sutherland Case issued a Status (Pretria 14 || Scheduling) Order, scheduling the jury trial to begin in the Sutherland Case on the same date a 15 the first day of the jury trial in this case, June 4, 2024, with an eight to 10 day estimate, 16 (Sutherland Case, ECF No. 26). E. Because of this conflict, on October 31, 2022, Defendants counsel filed motion M in both cases to address the conflict. (ECF No. 56; Sutherland Case ECF No. 27.) 18 F, On December 5, 2022, this Court denied both motions as premature, but stated i 19 would consider renewed motions closer to trial. (ECF No. 61; Sutherland Case ECF No. 33.) 20 G. Counsel in the instant case have been diligently engaged in discovery, includin 21 || both party discovery and third party subpoenas. 22 H. Plaintiff’s counsel now has a conflict with the June 4, 2024, trial date in th 23 || instant case because trial in another of her cases is scheduled for that date. Counsel for both sides 74 || have met and conferred, and agreed to request this Court to continue the trial date in the instan 95 || case: 26 I. Moreover, counsel have also met and conferred regarding scheduling depositions in the instant case, and both counsel also have significant other conflicts, as a result of whic they wish to continue the discovery deadlines and other pretrial deadlines. Among other things, 28 Plaintiff's counsel is scheduled to begin a lengthy jury trial that is scheduled to start on August 8, \CRABTREE \SUNTAG

1 || 2023, and scheduled to take up most of August 2023. Defendants’ counsel is scheduled to tak 2 || approximately 20 depositions from mid-August through September 2023 (some of which are 1 3 || the Sutherland case), and cannot be available for depositions in the instant case until Octobe 4 || 2023. Because of the number of depositions counsel is contemplating in the instant case based o 5 the results of written discovery, counsel believes the discovery cutoff date of November 13, 6 2023, will not allow them sufficient time to complete all the discovery necessary to prepare fo trial. J. Further, given the press of business, other trials, and matters that counsel hav scheduled, the anticipated time the parties will require to respond to outstanding discover ° requests and marshal the documents that will be requested, the time that may be required to mee 0 and confer on discovery issues in an effort to avoid potential discovery motions, the larg number of depositions contemplated because of the large number of third party witnesses, an the desire of counsel to exercise professional courtesies by reasonably accommodating th ° schedules of the deponents and counsel, granting reasonable extensions, and the need to se depositions on mutually available dates, including the anticipated difficulties with doing this ( 16 view of the number of party and counsel schedules and potential depositions involved), counse

7 reasonably estimate the need for, and, thus, respectfully request, a modification of th 13 Scheduling Order as set forth below. In addition, counsel for Defendants are not available fo 19 trial until April 2025. Counsel request that all deadlines in the Scheduling Order b 20 correspondingly extended to match the newly requested trial date, with spacing between suc dates to remain approximately the same as is set forth in the Pretrial Scheduling Order. 9 K. When an act must be done within a specified time, the Court may, for good cause, 3 extend the time with or without motion if the court acts, or a request is made, before the origina A time expires. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A). With respect to an order setting forth the Court’s pretria 5 schedule, “[t]he district court may modify the pretrial schedule ‘if it cannot be reasonably me 26 despite the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.’” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, 97 || Ine., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). 28 L. There have been no prior modifications of the Scheduling Order. \CRABTREE \SUNTAG

1 STIPULATION 2 The parties, by and through their undersigned counsel, respectfully request that the Cour 3 || modify the Scheduling Order as follows: 4 Current Date Proposed Date 5 Disclosure of Experts 9/18/2023 6/7/24 Disclosure of Rebuttal Experts 10/16/23 7/12/24 6 Cutoff of All Discover 11/13/23 9/6/24 7 Motion filing Cutoff Date 1/8/24 12/9/24 Final Pretrial Conference 3/25/24 February 2025 10 Based on the foregoing, the parties respectfully request that the Court grant thi

stipulation for a modification of the Scheduling Order.

D Respectfully Submitted, Dated: August 5, 2023 HERUM CRABTREE SUNTAG, LLP 13 14 _4s4loshua_ I Stevens 15 JOSHUA J. STEVENS 16 Attorneys for all Defendants 17 || Dated August 21, 2023 LAW OFFICE OF YOLANDA HUANG 18 By: —_Js/ Yolanda Huang 19 YOLANDA HUANG Attorney for Plaintiff 20 21 SIGNATURE ATTESTATION 3 Pursuant to Eastern District of California Local Rule 131(e), | attest that | 44 || Obtained authorization to place Plaintiffs counsel's e-signature on this document and t 95 || file this document with the Court. 6 By: /s/ - Joshua J. Stevens Joshua J. Stevens 27 28 \CRABTREE \SUNTAG

1 ORDER 2 The Court, having considered the parties’ stipulation, and good cause appearing, rules a 3 || follows: 4 The relief the stipulation requests is GRANTED, and the modified dates are as follows: 5 New Deadline 6 Disclosure of Experts 6/7/24 Disclosure of Rebuttal Experts 7/12/24 7 || | Cutoff of All Discover 9/6/24 g Motion filing Cutoff Date 12/9/24 Final Pretrial Conference 2/24/2025 at 1:30 pm 9 4/22/2025 at 9:00 am 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 12 || Dated: August 23, 2023 he HY (ht. ~E— 13 WILLIAM B. SHUBB UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 \SUNTAG