Levy v. City of Sacramento

Opinion

S USANA ALCALA WOOD, City Attorney (SBN 156366) KATHLEEN T. ROGAN, Senior Deputy City Attorney (SBN 186055) KRogan@cityofsacramento.org CITY OF SACRAMENTO 915 I Street, Room 4010 Sacramento, CA 95814-2608 Telephone: (916) 808-5346 Facsimile: (916) 808-7455 Attorneys for the CITY OF SACRAMENTO

BYRON H. LEVY, Case No.: 2:18-cv-02387-TLN-DB

Plaintiff, STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO TAKE PLAINTIFF AND

DEFENDANT’S DEPOSITION, vs. DISCLOSE EXPERTS, AND FILE CITY OF SACRAMENTO,

Defendant. Pursuant to Rule 16, a party may seek to modify a scheduling order, including modification of a discovery cut-off date “for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” (Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4).) “good cause” exists when a scheduling deadline “cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.” (Schaffner v. Crown Equipment Corporation, 2011 WL 6303408 at *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2011) (citing Johnson v. Mammoth Recreation, Inc., 975 F 2d. 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). On September 30, 2019, this court approved the parties’ stipulation seeking the continuation of discovery cutoff, expert disclosure, and dispositive motion dates. (Docket number 8.) Discovery currently closes on March 1; expert disclosure occurs April 1, 2020; and dispositive motions are due August 28, 2020. The parties agree to continue these dates because of the inability to complete depositions of plaintiff and defendant City of Sacramento within the current timeframe. Plaintiff’s deposition has been noticed three times. The City noticed it for January 22, February 12, and February 21, 2020. Due to a schedule conflict, the City had to continue the deposition from January 22, 2020 to February 12, 2020. Plaintiff has been unable to appear for deposition on either February 12 or February 21, 2020. Plaintiff’s counsel had trial in the matter of Frank Oti v. Arias in the Los Angeles Superior Court scheduled for February 20, 2020. Discovery closes March 1, 2020. The deposition of defendant City of Sacramento’s person(s) most knowledgeable was noticed for February 26, 2020. Defendant is unavailable for the deposition due to scheduling conflict. The City has no availability in March for Plaintiff’s deposition and limited availability in April and May. The City filed its answer in this case on October 14, 2018. The case has been pending only sixteen months. There is no trial date. For the foregoing reasons, the parties stipulate and respectfully request the court’s consideration of the following modifications to the Rule 16 Scheduling order: 1) Plaintiff’s deposition shall be completed not later than June 30, 2020; 2) Defendant’s deposition shall be completed not later than July 30, 2020; 3) Expert disclosure shall occur on August 17, 2020; 4) Dispositive motions shall be filed by November 2, 2020. So Stipulated.

Dated: February 25, 2020 SUSANA ALCALA WOOD, City Attorney

By: /s/ Kathleen T. Rogan Senior Deputy City Attorney Attorneys for the CITY OF SACRAMENTO

Dated: February 21, 2020 LAW OFFICES OF AKUDINOBI & IKONTE

By: /s/ Chijioke Ikonte Attorney for the Plaintiff

The court finds sufficient good cause to continue plaintiff’s deposition, expert disclosure and the dispositive motion dates. The Rule 16 scheduling order is amended accordingly: Plaintiff’s deposition shall be completed not later than June 30, 2020, 2) Defendant’s deposition shall be completed not later than July 30, 2020, 3) Expert disclosure shall occur on August 17, 2020, 4) Dispositive motions shall be filed by November 2, 2020.

Dated: February 25, 2020