Perez v. County of Sacramento

Opinion

Van Longyear, CSB No.: 84189 Nicole M. Cahill, CSB No.: 287165 Ashley M. Calvillo, CSB No.: 340128 555 University Avenue, Suite 280 Sacramento, CA 95825 Phone: 916-974-8500 Facsimile: 916-974-8510 Emails: longyear@longyearlaw.com cahill@longyearlaw.com calvillo@longyearlaw.com

Attorneys for Defendant, County of Sacramento UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SACRAMENTO DIVISION

KIMBERLY PEREZ, individually and as ) Case No.: 2:21-CV-00356-TLN-JDP successor-in-interest to Maurice Holley, Sr., ) deceased; MAURICE HOLLEY, Jr., ) STIPULATION AND ORDER TO individually and as a successor-in-interest to ) MODIFY THE SCHEDULING ORDER Maurice Holley, Sr.; ANGEL HOLLEY, ) individually and as a successor-in-interest to ) Maurice Holley, Sr., deceased; MITRA ) HOLLEY, individually and as a successor-in- ) interest to Maurice Holley, Sr. deceased, ) ) Plaintiffs ) ) v. ) ) COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, a public ) entity; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, ) ) Defendants. ) ) Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 16(b)(1)(A) and Local Rule 143, the parties, through counsel, stipulate to and hereby request a modification of this Court’s scheduling order. Pursuant to the Court’s Order to Modify the Scheduling Order (ECF No. 12) the current schedule is as follows: o Fact discovery cut off: June 30, 2022 o Expert witness disclosure: July 25, 2022 o Supplemental expert disclosure: August 22, 2022 o Dispositive motion deadline: November 22, 2022 The parties in this case request an extension only as to the dispositive motion deadline. The parties have engaged in settlement negotiations and request more time to conduct said negotiations prior to the commencement of briefing on dispositive motions. Defendant County intends to file a motion for summary judgment in the event the parties do not reach a mutually agreeable settlement. Accordingly, the parties request the dispositive motion deadline be extended sixty (60) days from the current deadline, January 22, 2023. A scheduling order may only be modified upon a showing of good cause and by leave of Court. Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 6(b)(1)(A); Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). In considering whether a party moving for a schedule modification has good cause, the Court primarily focuses on the diligence of the party seeking the modification. Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. The parties have acted diligently in prosecuting this case. Depositions of Plaintiffs have been conducted, as has the deposition of the deputy involved in the shooting at issue. Expert reports have been exchanged and filed and Defendant has deposed Plaintiffs’ police practices expert. Written discovery has also been exchanged. The parties only request more time in order to meaningfully engage in settlement negotiations before the costly process of preparing dispositive motions begins. Additionally, this proposed modification will not delay trial, as no trial date has been set. For these reasons, good cause exists to modify the fact discovery cut off deadline.

Dated: November 10, 2022 LONGYEAR & LAVRA, LLP

By: /s/ Nicole M. Cahill NICOLE M. CAHILL Attorneys for Defendant, County of Sacramento

Dated: November 10, 2022 LAW OFFICES OF TED A. GREENE, INC.

By: /s/ Michael Croddy [as authorized 11-10-22] TED A. GREENE Attorneys for Plaintiff, Kimberly Perez

Dated: November 10, 2022 THE GORDON LAW FIRM

By: /s/ Chris Gordon [as authorized 11-8-22] Attorneys for Plaintiffs, Maurice Holley, Jr., Angel Holley and Mitra Holley

Good cause appearing, the parties’ stipulated request to modify the Court’s Scheduling Order (ECF No. 12) is GRANTED. The relevant deadline is ordered as follows: o Dispositive motion filing deadline: January 26, 2023 ° yy / DATED: November 10, 2022 “ } Le MMA Troy L. Nunley ] United States District Judge

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO MODIFY THE SCHEDULING ORDER- 4