UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
November 3, 2010
MIGUEL GONZALEZ, JR., A MINOR, BY AND THROUGH HIS GUARDIAN AD LITEM, MARIA GONZALEZ, MARIA GONZALEZ AND MIGUEL GONZALEZ, PLAINTIFFS,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, GURVIR KHURANA, M.D.; KERN MEDICAL CENTER; AND DOES 1 THROUGH 300, INCLUSIVE DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sheila K. Oberto United States Magistrate Judge
JOINT STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES; ORDER
The parties to the above referenced action, subject to the Court's approval, hereby stipulate to the following:
WHEREAS the parties desire to continue fact discovery and expert discovery related dates contained in the Court's November 9, 2009 Scheduling Conference Order.
WHEREAS the parties have been diligent in conducting discovery however Plaintiffs' trial counsel, Thomas E. Donahue, has had trial conflicts (back to back trials since August 2010 and continuing to mid to late December 2010) that have prevented Mr. Donahue from engaging in the necessary fact discovery in this matter. The parties have been working together to schedule the depositions and discovery that remain. In an effort to accommodate Mr. Donahue's impacted trial schedule and to allow Plaintiffs and the defendants to meaningfully participate in necessary discovery, the parties HEREBY AGREE, subject to the Court's approval, to modify the fact discovery and expert discovery related dates contained in the Court's Scheduling Conference Order, dated November 9, 2009, as follows:
1. The cut-off for non-expert discovery, previously set for November 15, 2010, shall be continued for seventy-five (75) days, or until January 31, 2011.
2. Plaintiff's expert witness disclosure deadline, previously set for December 15, 2010, shall be continued for sixty (60) days, or until February 15, 2011.
3. Defendant's expert witness disclosure deadline, previously set for January 14, 2011, shall be continued for sixty (60) days, or until March 14, 2011.
4. The parties' deadline to disclose supplemental expert witnesses, previously set for February 15, 2011, shall be continued for sixty (60) days, or until April 15, 2011.
The parties also HEREBY AGREE, subject to the Court's approval, that the following dates, contained in the Court's Scheduling Conference Order, dated November 9, 2009, remain as follows:
1. The cut-off for expert discovery shall remain June 24, 2011.
2. The deadline for filing non-dispositive motions shall remain June 24, 2011.
3. The deadline for filing dispositive motions shall remain July 22, 2011.
4. The Pre-Trial Conference date shall remain September 15, 2011.
5. The Trial Date shall remain October 31, 2011.
Dated: November 1, 2010
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY Lawrence G. Brown Jason Ehrlinspiel Attorneys for Defendant United States of America
LEBEAU THELEN, LLP Dennis R. Thelen, Esq. Attorneys for Defendant Gurvir Khurana, M.D.
PATTERSON, LOCKWOOD, HARRIS, JURICH & HILLYER, LLP John A. Jurich Attorneys for Defendant County of Kern (erroneously sued as Kern Medical Center)
COUNTY COUNSEL OF THE COUNTY OF KERN, STATE OF CALIFORNIA B.C. Barmann, Sr. Jennifer E. Zahry Attorneys for Defendant County of Kern (erroneously sued as Kern Medical Center)
DONAHUE & HORROW, LLP Thomas E. Donahue Attorneys for Plaintiffs Miguel Gonzales, Jr., a minor, by and through his guardian ad litem, Maria Gonzalez, Maria Gonzalez, and Miguel Gonzalez
The parties' request for an extension of the discovery deadlines as outlined above is GRANTED. All other deadlines, including those applicable for filing and hearing all pre-trial motions, the pre-trial conference date, and the trial date remain UNCHANGED.
The parties are reminded that, pursuant to the scheduling order issued in this case, any "[s]tipulations extending the deadlines contained [in the scheduling order] will not be considered unless they are accompanied by affidavits or declarations and, where appropriate, attached exhibits which establish good cause for granting the relief requested." (Doc. 35.) Any future requests for modification that do not comply with the scheduling order will not be considered and may result in the imposition of sanctions.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.