Thompson v. Saukhla

Opinion

XAVIER BECERRA, State Bar No. 118517 Attorney General of California PETER A. MESHOT, State Bar No. 117061 Supervising Deputy Attorney General DIANA ESQUIVEL, State Bar No. 202954 Deputy Attorney General 1300 I Street, Suite 125 P.O. Box 944255 Sacramento, CA 94244-2550 Telephone: (916) 210-7320 Facsimile: (916) 322-8288 E-mail: Diana.Esquivel@doj.ca.gov Attorneys for Defendants Haile, Naidoo, Portugal, and Saukhla FELICIA THOMPSON, No. 2:18-cv-02422 WBS-KJN Plaintiff, STIPULATED REQUEST TO MODIFY AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER TO v. EXTEND DEADLINES FOR EXPERT AND REBUTTAL DISCLOSURES BY SEVEN-DAYS NARINDER SAUKHLA, et al., Trial Date: July 27, 2021 Defendants. Action Filed: September 3, 2018 Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 16(b)(1)(A) and Local Rule 143, the parties, through their respective counsel of record, stipulate to and request a modification of the July 21, 2020 Amended Scheduling Order (ECF No. 73) to extend the expert disclosure and rebuttal expert disclosure dates by seven days. Good cause exists grant the stipulated request because the parties require more time to disclose expert witnesses. When an act must be done within a specified time, the court may, for good cause, extend the time with or without motion or notice if the court acts, or if a request is made, before the original time expires. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A). A scheduling order may be modified only upon a showing of good cause and by leave of Court. Id. 16(b)(4); see, e.g., Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (describing the factors a court should consider in ruling on such a motion). 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 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 advisory committee’s notes of 1983 amendment). “The district court may modify the pretrial schedule ‘if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.’” Id. (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 advisory committee notes of 1983 amendment). The current deadline to disclose expert witnesses is December 4, 2020, and the rebuttal/supplemental expert disclosure is January 8, 2021. (ECF No. 73.) Despite the diligent efforts of counsel for Defendants Briggs, Cortez, Galvan, Hale, and Saukhla, the Defendants will not be able to close experts by the current deadline. Defendants’ expert had been deployed to Afghanistan for the past several months, and just recently returned to California. Due to the expert being overseas and in a different time zone, communication between Defendants’ counsel and their expert was difficult and time-consuming. Nevertheless, the expert was able to substantially complete his Rule 26 report despite his location. On December 3, 2020, Defendants’ counsel was eventually able to speak with the expert by telephone and learned that he would require a short extension to complete his Rule 26 report. Without their expert’s report, Defendants cannot disclose experts by December 4. For this reason, Defendants Briggs, Cortez, Galvan, Hale, and Saukhla request, and Plaintiff has no objection to, a short seven-day extension of the expert-disclosure deadline. Plaintiff requests, and Defendants do not object, that the corresponding rebuttal/supplemental disclosure deadline be extended by seven days as well. The extension is needed to ensure that the parties have sufficient time to prepare any rebuttal or supplemental report they deem necessary to address the initial disclosures. These requested extensions of the expert and rebuttal disclosure deadlines will not affect any other deadline in the Amended Scheduling Order. / / / / / / For these reasons, good cause exists to modify these expert-related scheduling deadlines. The parties therefore agree and request that the initial disclosures of expert witnesses be extended to December 11, 2020, and that rebuttal/supplemental reports be due on January 15, 2021.

Dated: December 3, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

Attorney General of California Supervising Deputy Attorney General /s/ Diana Esquivel DIANA ESQUIVEL Deputy Attorney General Attorneys for Defendants Briggs, Cortez, Galvan, Haile, and Saukhla

Dated: December 3, 2020 KING HALL CIVIL RIGHTS CLINIC /s/ Carter C. White (as authorized 12/3/20) CARTER C. WHITE Attorneys for Plaintiff Felicia Thompson

Dated: December 3, 2020 LONGYEAR, O’DEA & LAVRA, LLP /s/ Van Longyear (as authorized 12/3/20) NICOLE M. CAHILL Attorneys for Defendants Naidoo and Portugal

SA2018302831 34637682.docx

Good cause appearing, the parties’ stipulated request to modify the July 21, 2020 Amended Scheduling Order (ECF No. 73) is GRANTED. The parties shall disclose expert witnesses on or before December 11, 2020. Rebuttal/supplemental expert disclosures are due no later than January 15, 2021. In all other respects, the July 21, 2020 Amended Scheduling Order remains in full force and effect. Dated: December 6, 2020 ° Fens Arn thom2422 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE ~ Stipulated Request to Modify Scheduling Order re: 7-Day Extension of Expert-Related Deadlines □□□□□