Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Raymond Guthrey v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

January 19, 2012

RAYMOND GUTHREY, PLAINTIFF,
v.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, MICHAEL PATE, JR., AND DOES 1 THROUGH 25, INCLUSIVE,
DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Barbara A. McAuliffe United States Magistrate Judge

JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE PRETRIAL AND TRIAL DEADLINES

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED between Raymond Guthrey, by and through his attorney, Shannon Seibert, and California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and Michael Pate, Jr., by and through their attorney, Michael Gowe, Deputy Attorney General, that GOOD CAUSE exists and the parties request that the Court continue the pretrial and trial deadlines based on the following:

1. The complaint in this matter filed on November 19, 2010 and the case was assigned to Hon. Oliver W. Wanger. The pre-trial and trial deadlines were established in Hon. Wanger's Scheduling Order filed on May 20, 2011.

2. Counsel for the parties exchanged initial disclosures on June 2, 2011 and served discovery requests in June and August 2011. Plaintiff's deposition was taken on September 20, 2011. Defendant Pate's deposition was scheduled to take place in October 2011 following Plaintiff's receipt of Defendants' discovery responses.

3. On September 27, 2011, defense counsel assigned to this matter, Deputy Attorney General Jeffrey Schwarzschild, left the employment of the Attorney General's office, and the matter was transferred to Deputy Attorney General Michael Gowe.

4. Defendants had not served their discovery responses before Mr. Schwarzschild's departure. The parties agreed to extend the time for Defendants' discovery responses to allow defense counsel to become familiar with the facts of the case.

5. Each of the parties has now responded to the initial round of discovery requests of the other, though matters remain in dispute regarding Plaintiff's requests and Defendants' responses. The parties have engaged in lengthy meet and confer efforts and are working together toward resolution of the disputed matters. The parties have agreed upon the entry of a protective order, which the parties will submit for the Court's approval by January 27, 2012, to protect sensitive information that is responsive to Plaintiff's disputed requests. The parties will schedule the depositions of Defendant Pate and other witnesses upon resolution of the disputed matters and expect that all depositions will be completed by May 2012.

6. An Early Settlement Conference that was scheduled for January 18, 2012 has been continued at the request of the parties. Counsel for the parties remain in agreement that a settlement conference will be beneficial to the parties but believe that it will be more productive after the deposition of Defendant Pate and the receipt by Plaintiff of additional discovery responses.

Based on the foregoing, the parties respectfully request that this Court continue the pretrial and trial deadlines in the following manner:

1. Non-Expert Discovery Cutoff

a. Current: January 31, 2012

b. Proposed: July 31, 2012

2. Expert Disclosures

a. Current: February 29, 2012

b. Proposed: August 31, 2012

3. Rebuttal Expert Disclosures

a. Current: March 30, 2012

b. Proposed: October ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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