UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA FRESNO DIVISION
September 16, 2011
LOL FINANCE COMPANY
DWIGHT G.. MEBANE, HELEN L. MEBANE, DWIGHT AND HELEN MEBANE TRUST, JUSTIN J. MEBANE, CHET B. MEBANE, MELISA J. WARNER, JOHN DOE, AND ABC COMPANY
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Jennifer L. Thurston United States Magistrate Judge
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER MODIFYING SCHEDULING ORDER [DOC. 57] AND CONTINUING DATES FOR FILING AND HEARING DISCOVERY MOTION TWO WEEKS
Present Dates: Filing Discovery Motions; 9/16/11 Hearing Discovery Motions: 10/14/11
Proposed Dates: Filing Discovery Motions; 9/30/11 Hearing Discovery Motions: 10/28/11
Before: Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston [For all purposes]
Action filed: __1/14/2010____
Defendants Justin J. Mebane, Melisa J. Warner and Chet B. Mebane (collectively "Individual Defendants"), by counsel, and plaintiff LOL Finance Company, by counsel, hereby stipulate and agree as follows:
1. There is a discovery dispute regarding Plaintiff's responses to the Individual Defendants.
2. The discovery responses that are the subject of this dispute pertain to responses that weredue on August 10, 2011.
a. The LOL Finance Company's Responses were served as follows:
i. LOL Finance Company's written response to all the Individual Defendants' Request For Production on September 7, 2011;
ii. LOL Finance Company's Response to Chet Mebane's Special Interrogatories on September 15, 2011;
iii. LOL Finance Company's Response to Melissa Warner's Special Interrogatories on September 8, 2011:
iv. LOL Finance Company's Response to Justin Mebane's Special Interrogatories on September 8, 2011;
b. On September 16, 2011, LOL Finance Company, by counsel, agreed to the Individual Defendants request for a stipulation extending the cutoff offs to allow a more orderly approach to the issues in dispute.
3. The aforementioned chronology is provided for background on the timing of this dispute. .
4. Prior to such stipulation, the Individual Defendants represented that they were in the process of completing a motion to compel and ex parte application to bring this to the Court's attention the discovery issues.
5. To allow for an orderly resolution of these disputes, the possibility that more meet and confer will resolve or narrow issues, the parties request the relief requested herein. Additionally, the parties seek to minimize the motion practice on the procedure issues regarding the ex parte and, thus avoid the Court from having to rule on that motion..
6. Thus, the parties respectfully request, GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, that the dates set forth in the scheduling order for the filing and hearing of discovery disputes be continued two weeks:
a. The last date to file a motion to compel would be 9/30/2011;
b. The last date a motion to compel could be heard would be 10/28/2011.
7. The parties do not envision this as affecting any other deadlines. There have been no prior requests to continue these dates.
DATED: September 16, 2011
LAW OFFICES OF RALPH B. WEGIS, P.C. /s/ RALPH B. WEGIS, Esq. Attorneys for Defendants Justin J. Mebane, Melisa J. Warner, and Chet B. Mebane
DATED: September 16, 2011
Stoel Rives LLLP /s/ JONATHAN C. MIESEN, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiff LOL Finance Company
Good cause appearing, the Court ORDERS the scheduling order to be amended as follows:
1. Non-dispositive motions SHALL be filed no later than 9/30/2011 and heard no later than 10/28/2011;
2. Before any discovery motion is filed, counsel SHALL meet and confer in good faith to attempt to resolve the matter. If resolution cannot be achieved, counsel SHALL have a telephonic conference with the Court to determine whether the matter can be resolved without need to file a formal motion. Only after this conference, may the discovery motion be filed.
3. No other dates set forth in the Scheduling Order are modified at this time.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.