Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Perez, et al v. State of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA -- FRESNO DIVISION


January 5, 2011

PEREZ, ET AL.,
PLAINTIFFS,
v.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sheila K. Oberto United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER GRANTING IN PART STIPULATED REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE OF SCHEDULING CONFERENCE (Docket No. 11)

Plaintiffs filed this case on June 16, 2010. On June 17, 2010, the Court set an Initial Scheduling Conference for August 24, 2010. On August 10, 2010, the parties filed a stipulated request for a continuance of the Scheduling Conference citing voluminous documents that neither party had a chance to review. (Doc. 4.) This request was granted on August 12, 2010, and the Scheduling Conference was reset to November 23, 2010.

On November 19, 2010, the parties filed another stipulated request for a continuance of the Scheduling Conference for the same reason. (Doc. 8.) The Court granted the request, but stated that unless truly good cause was set forth supported by declarations and affidavits, no further request for a continuance would be entertained. (Doc. 9.) The Scheduling Conference was then reset to January 13, 2010.

On January 4, 2011, the parties filed another request to continue the Scheduling Conference asserting that video footage relevant to the claims was still under review by counsel. (Doc. 11.)

Counsel for Plaintiffs asserts that he needs another 30 days to determine whether the facts support proceeding forward with the case and to develop a meaningful discovery plan. Counsel for both parties believe that they would be unable to have a discovery plan prepared for the Scheduling Conference, and thus, request a continuance. (Doc. 11.)

While the Court finds that good cause exists to support a continuance, only a two-week extension is warranted. This matter has been pending for more than six months. Much of the evidence the parties wish to review can be accomplished during discovery. Delaying the scheduling conference for several months has apparently not helped expedite the process. The Scheduling Conference will provide the parties an opportunity to discuss with the Court ways to craft a workable schedule, allowing the parties and counsel the time they need to assess their respective cases.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. The parties' stipulated request for a continuance of the Scheduling Conference is GRANTED IN PART; and

2. The Scheduling Conference is RESET for February 1, 2011, at 9:15 a.m.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

ie14hj

20110105

© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.