Stowe v. Alford

Opinion

KLaEwL LOAffNic Se .o Pf AKTeTllEanR SPOatNte, rEsSonQ . SB No. 307190 770 L Street, Suite 950 Sacramento, CA 95814 P: (916) 905-4464 F: (916) 721-2742 E: info@kellanpatterson.com Attorney for Plaintiff KRISTOPHER STOWE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA KRISTOPHER STOWE, an individual, Case No.: 2:19-cv-01652-KJM-AC Plaintiff, STIPULATION TO MODIFY BRIEFING DEADLINES RE: DEFENDANT’S v. MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [ECF NO. 20] BRAD ALFORD, in his personal capacity

Defendant.

INTRODUCTION The parties, Plaintiff Kristopher Stowe (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant Brad Alford (“Defendant”), through their respective attorneys of record, hereby jointly stipulate to modify the motion briefing deadlines as set forth below. RECITAL/GROUNDS FOR RELIEF Pursuant to Rule 16, a party may seek modification of a scheduling order, including modification of a discovery cut-off date, “only for good cause and with a judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). Rule 16(b)’s good cause inquiry focuses primarily on the movant’s diligence. Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 1294 (9th Cir. 2000). However, the court has “broad discretion in supervising the pretrial phase of litigation.” Zivkovic v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002). A party may establish good cause by showing: (1) the [the parties were] diligent in assisting the court in creating a workable Rule 16 order; (2) that [the parties’] noncompliance with a Rule 16 deadline occurred or will occur, notwithstanding [their] diligent efforts to comply, because of the development of matters which could not have been reasonably foreseen or anticipated at the time of the Rule 16 scheduling conference; and (3) that [they were] diligent in seeking amendment of the Rule 16 order, once it because apparent that [they] could not comply with the order. Hood v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co., 567 F.Supp.2d 1221, 1224 (E.D. Cal. 2008)(citations omitted). The current deadline to file an opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is December 3, 2021. The current deadline to complete and file a Reply to Plaintiff’s opposition is December 10, 2021. The parties stipulate and agreed to modify the briefing schedule for the below reasons: (1) Defendant filed his Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 20) on November 19, 2021. (2) Defendant filed a notice of lodging exhibits with the court which included exhibits “D” through “G”. (3) Defendant mistakenly failed to serve those exhibits on Plaintiff’s counsel. (4) Plaintiff’s counsel learned of the omission on December 2, 2021 after the Thanksgiving holiday. (5) Defendant served the exhibits on Plaintiff’s counsel of December 3, 2021. (6) On November 22, 2021, the Court on its own motion, continued the hearing date of this motion to February 11, 2022. (7) Plaintiff now request to submit his Opposition to the motion on or before December 17, 2021. (8) Given the intervening holiday, Defendant’s Reply will be due on or before December 29, 2021 /// /// /// /// l SO STIPULATED. Dated: December 9, 2021 LAW OFFICE OF KELLAN PATTERSON /s/ Kellan S. Patterson Kellan Patterson Attorney for KRISTOPHER STOWE Dated: December 9, 2021 PORTER SCOTT /S/ John Whitefleet John Whitefleet Attorney for BRAD ALFORD 1] The Court does find good cause to modify and extend motion briefing deadline in light of the recitals stipulated above and so order that: 1. Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. [20]) to be due on or before December 17, 2021. 2. Defendant’s Reply to Plaintiff's Opposition to be due one or before December 29, 2021. 3. The hearing date as to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. [20]) will remain unchanged and will take place on February 11, 2022. DATED: December 22, 2021. CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE {02567763.DOCX} STIPULATION TO MODIFY BRIEFING DEADLINES RE: DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY