Owuor v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc.

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: February 27, 2024
• Docket: 2:21-cv-02232
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

Julian Burns King (Bar No. 298617) julian@kingsiegel.com 2 || Andrea Obando (Bar No. 312640) andrea@kingsicgel.com 3 || KING & SIEGEL 724 South Spring, Street, Suite 214 4 || Los Angeles, California 90014 tel: t5 3) 465-4802 5 || fax: (213) 289-2815 6 || Attorneys for Plaintiff Hellen Owuor 7 || Kara L. Jassy, Bar No. 198846 Kassy@littler.com g || Nathaniel Jenkins, Bar No. 312067 ny cnkings@ fitter com 9 || LITTLER MENDELSON P.C. 633 West 5th Street, 634 Floor 10 || Los Angeles, California 90071 telephone: 213.443.4300 1] || Fax No.: = 213.443.4299 12 || Attorneys for Defendant Wal-Mart Associates, Inc. 13 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

15 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Of CASE NO. 2:21-CV-02232-KJM-JDP 16 || Hellen Owuor, an individual, 17 Plaintiff Assigned to Hon. Kimberly J. Mueller , for all purposes 18 VS. 19 Wal-Mart Associates, Inc., a Delaware STIPULATION TO MODIFY 0 corporation; and Does 1-10, inclusive, SCHEDULING ORDER

Defendants. Complaint filed: | October 25, 2021 22 Date removed: December 3, 2021 23 24 25 26 27 28 Omron amiImurtr mm AA Canteen {f{innrnrn

1 || TO THE COURT AND ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF 2 || RECORD: 3 Plaintiff Hellen Owuor (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant Wal-Mart Associates, Inc 4 ||(“Defendant”) collectively (“the Parties”) by and through their counsel of recorc 5 || hereby submit the following Joint Stipulation to Continue the Settlement Conference: 6 WHEREAS, on September 6, 2023, this Court granted the Parties Stipulate 7 || request to continue the scheduling order, which set the following dates: 8 Deadline to complete fact discovery: March 1, 2024; 9 Deadline to complete expert disclosures: March 22, 2024; 10 Deadline to exchange rebuttal expert witnesses: April 5, 2024; 11 Deadline to complete expert discovery: April 26, 2024; and 12 Deadline to hear all dispositive motions: June 7, 2024. 13 See Dkt. 34. 14 WHEREAS, in June 2022, the Parties began discussing engaging in a privat 15 || mediation, which was eventually scheduled for February 2023; 16 WHEREAS, in light of the mediation being scheduled for February 2023, th 17 || Parties mutually agreed to stay discovery, in order to focus time and resources on ; 18 || potential settlement of the case; 19 WHEREAS, given this mutually-agreed discovery stay, neither Party responde: 20 || to written discovery or took depositions of any witnesses prior to the mediation; 21 WHEREAS, the Parties engaged in private mediation on February 24, 2023 22 || however, the mediation was unsuccessful, and the Parties began to engage in writte1 23 || discovery efforts and schedule depositions; 24 WHEREAS, in light of an unplanned, emergency absence for Defendants 25 || counsel, the Parties entered into a stipulation to modify the Scheduling Order on Jul 26 || 7, 2023 (ECF No. 27), which the Court granted on July 12, 2023 (ECF No. 28); 27 WHEREAS, the Parties have diligently pursued discovery efforts (despite th 28 Ce ee A

1 || discovery deadlines in the current scheduling order in hopes the Court will continu 2 ||same); however, one of Defendant’s counsel had to take an unexpected, □□□□□□□□□ 3 || leave of absence to care for an immediate family member who had suffered a stroke 4 || which has unfortunately caused delays in the Parties’ discovery efforts and their abilit 5 || to prepare dispositive motion(s); 6 WHEREAS, in light of the foregoing, the Parties entered a stipulation to □□□□□□ 7 |\|the scheduling order on August 31, 2023 (ECF No. 33), which the Court granted o1 8 || September 6, 2023 (ECF No. 34); 9 WHEREAS, the Parties attended an informal discovery conference □□□ 10 || Magistrate Judge Peterson on November 16, 2023; 11 WHEREAS, the Parties continue to meet and confer as to ongoing discover 12 || disputes and deposition scheduling; 13 WHEREAS, the Parties are scheduled for a Mandatory Settlement Conferenc 14 |}on March 12, 2023; 15 WHEREAS, the Parties wish to focus their efforts on the discovery necessar 16 ||in advance of the Mandatory Settlement Conference; 17 WHEREAS, neither Party will be prejudiced by a continuance of the schedulin; 18 || order; 19 WHEREAS, counsel for Plaintiff has two matters scheduled for trial in Marcl 20 |}and April that will impact the availability of counsel for depositions and othe 21 || discovery-related matters; 22 WHEREAS, in light of the foregoing, the Parties contend that judicial econom 23 ||is best served if the Parties continue the current scheduling order, specifically th 24 ||discovery and dispositive motion deadlines, to allow the Parties a meaningfu 25 || opportunity to engage in discovery, resolve discovery disputes without the Court’ 26 || intervention, and provide time to prepare dispositive motions which could narrow th 27 || issues for and/or negate the need for a trial; and 28 Ce ee A

1 WHEREAS, good cause exists to modify the Court’s scheduling Order as 2 || follows: 3 The district court is given broad discretion in supervising the pretrial phase of 4 || litigation...” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir. 5 || 1992) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). “A schedule may be modified 6 || only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); see e.g. 7 || Spiller v. Ella Smithers Geriatric Ctr., 919 F.2d 339, 343 (5th Cir. 1990) (court 8 || impliedly granted motion to modify scheduling order by allowing summary 9 || judgment motion after pretrial motion cut-off date). To establish “good cause,” 10 || parties seeking modification of a scheduling order must generally show that, even 11 || with the exercise of due diligence, they cannot meet the order’s timetable. Johnson, 12 || supra, 975 F.2d at 609; see e.g., Hood v. Hartford Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 567 13 || F.Supp.2d 1221, 1224 (E.D. Cal. 2008) (granting request for modification that was 14 || promptly made when it became apparent that compliance with the scheduling order 15 || was not possible). In determining “good cause,” courts also consider the importance 16 || of the requested modification, the potential prejudice in allowing the modification, 17 || and, conversely, whether denial of the requested modification would result in 18 || prejudice. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co. v. City of El Paso, 346 F.3d 541, 546 (5th Cir. 19 || 2003) Gnvolving amendment of pleadings). Here, the Parties contend that there is 20 || good cause as set forth above. 21 NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by 22 || between the Parties, through their counsel of record, that the following deadlines bi 23 || continued as follows: 24 Deadline to complete fact discovery: September 6, 2024; 25 Deadline to complete expert disclosures: September 27, 2024; 26 Deadline to exchange rebuttal expert witnesses: October 11, 2024; 27 Deadline to complete expert discovery: November 1, 2024; and 28 Ce ee A

1 Deadline to hear all dispositive motions: December 13, 2024. 2 IT IS SO STIPULATED. 3 . Dated: February 8, 2024 Respectfully submitted, 4 5 KING & SIEGEL LLP 6 By: /s/ Andrea Obando _ 7 Julian Burns King Andrea Obando 8 Attorneys for Plaintiff Hellen Owuo 9 10 Dated: February 8, 2024 LITTLER MENDLESON, P.C. ll By: /s/ Nathaniel Jenkins Kara L. Jassy 12 Nathaniel Jenkins 13 Attorneys for Defendants oo Wal-Mart Associates, Inc. 14

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Omron amiImurtr mm AA Canteen {f{innrnrn

1 ORDER 2 || PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. 3||DATED: February 26, 2024. ~ CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11

15 16

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Coo