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 AND ORDER TO EXTEND TIME TO TAKE PLAINTIFF’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). The City filed its answer in this case on October 14, 2018. The case has been pending only twenty months. There is currently no trial date. On February 25, 2020, this court approved the parties’ stipulation seeking the continuation of discovery cutoff, expert disclosure, and dispositive motion dates. (Docket number 10.) The modified deadlines were necessary because conflicts with the parties’ The current deadlines are: 1) Plaintiff’s deposition be completed not later than June 30, 2020; 2) Depositions of the City’s Persons Most Knowledgeable, previously noticed on February 11, 2020, will be completed by July 15, 2020; 3) Expert disclosure will occur on August 17, 2020; 4) Dispositive motions will be filed by November 2, 2020. On March 19, 2020, the Sacramento County Health Department issued an order requiring all non-essential workers to remain at home. That order was extended on April 7, May 1, May 26, and June 12, 2020. Consequently, both counsel have been working from home, as have some of those who would be designated as person’s most knowledgeable. These circumstances have prevented the parties from completing the remaining depositions. 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 be completed not later than January 30, 2021; 2) Depositions of the City’s Persons Most Knowledgeable, previously noticed on February 11, 2020, will be completed by February 15, 2021; 3) Expert disclosure will occur on April 15, 2021; 4) Dispositive motions will be filed by July 2, 2021. /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// So Stipulated. Dated: June 17, 2020 SUSANA ALCALA WOOD, City Attorney

By: /s/ Kathleen T. Rogan KATHLEEN T. ROGAN Senior Deputy City Attorney Attorneys for the

Dated: June 17, 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 January 30, 2021, 2) Depositions of the City’s Persons Most Knowledgeable, previously noticed on February 11, 2020, will be completed by February 15, 2021; 3) Expert disclosure shall occur on April 15, 2021; and 4) Dispositive motions shall be filed not later than October 1, 2021. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 18, 2020