UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
March 3, 2011
PAULO EUGENE GUINN,
J. STURM, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sheila K. Oberto United States Magistrate Judge
(Docket No. 26)
ORDER ON PARTIES' STIPULATED REQUEST TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND AMEND SCHEDULING ORDER
On March 1, 2011, the parties filed a stipulated request for a revised scheduling order. (Doc. 26.) The parties stated that they had agreed to continue all of the remaining scheduling dates in the litigation, including the trial date, because the attorney representing Defendants will be taking maternity leave during the dates on which the trial is currently set. (Doc. 26, ¶2.)
The parties have stated good cause, and the Court will grant a continuance. While the Court can accommodate the new trial date proposed by the parties, some of the other dates proposed do not allow sufficient time between events. Therefore, the Court has not adopted all of the dates proposed by the parties, and the schedule deadlines will be revised as follows:
Event Previous Deadline Revised Deadline
Non Expert Discovery March 15, 2011 September 9, 2011 Expert Disclosure March 4, 2011 August 31, 2011 Supp. Expert Disclosure March 24, 2011 September 9, 2011 Expert Discovery May 3, 2011 September 23, 2011 Non-Disp. Motion Filing May 5, 2011 September 28, 2011 Hearing for Non-Disp. Mots. June 2, 2011 October 26, 2011 Disp. Motion Filing May 5, 2011 September 28, 2011 Hearing for Disp. Mots. June 2, 2011 November 9, 2011 Pre-Trial Conference June 15, 2011 December 21, 2011 Settlement Conference May 17, 2011 October 13, 2011 Trial Date August 1, 2011 February 6, 2012
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties' request for an extension of their scheduling deadlines is GRANTED as set forth above.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.