UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
April 26, 2012
YETUNDA WRIGHT ET AL.,
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, ET AL.,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Jennifer L. Thurston United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION TO AMEND SCHEDULING ORDER (Doc. 17)
In advance of the mid-discovery status conference, the parties filed a joint report detailing the status of the discovery thus far. (Doc. 17) In it, counsel report that the number of depositions that appear to be needed is greater than they had anticipated previously. Id. at 2. They report that they have agreed that each side may take as many as 30 depositions in addition to expert depositions. Id.
Counsel report also that they have had great difficulty in locating many witnesses. (Doc. 17 at 1-2) Given this, they do not believe they will be able to complete non-expert discovery before the deadline, currently set on August 31, 2012. Id. As a result, they seek an extension of time to complete non-expert and expert discovery. Id. at 2. The Court held the mid-discovery status conference on April 26, 2012. (Doc. 18) Though Plaintiffs' counsel failed to appear, Defendants' counsel further detailed the stipulations set forth in the joint report.
After hearing the argument of Defendants' counsel and good cause appearing, the Court
1. The stipulation to amend the scheduling order to allow up to 30 depositions per side in
4 addition to expert depositions is GRANTED; 5
2. The stipulation to amend the scheduling order is GRANTED as follows:
a. All non-expert discovery SHALL be completed no later than October 5, 2012;
b. Joint expert disclosure, in the manner required by the scheduling order, SHALL occur no later than October 12, 2012; 9
c. Joint rebuttal expert disclosure, in the manner required by the scheduling order, SHALL occur no later than November 2, 2012;
d. All expert discovery SHALL be completed no later than November 16, 2012;
e. Any nondispositive motions SHALL be filed no later than November 16, 2012 and heard no later than December 14, 2012;
3. No other amendments to the scheduling order are authorized. No further modifications to the scheduling order will be permitted absent a showing of exceptionally good cause. 9j7khijed
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.