UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA FRESNO DIVISION
June 27, 2012
CORONA, ET AL.,
KNOWLES, ET AL.,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Lawrence J. O'Neill United States District Judge
STIPULATION REGARDING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; ORDER (Note Court uses own language) TRIAL: February 26, 2013 TIME: 8:30 a.m. COURTROOM: 4
The parties request a three-week continuance of the hearing on Defendants' motion for summary judgment. The motion is set to be heard on July 27, 2012. Dkt. # 142. The parties propose a hearing date of August 17, 2012, with briefing dates based on that schedule. The deadline for hearing dispositive motions is not until November 5, 2012. Dkt. # 129.
Good cause supports the parties' request. Defendants have moved to dismiss all of Plaintiffs' claims, arguing that Defendants acted reasonably and pursuant to CDCR policies.
E.g., Dkt. # 142-1 at 6. The discovery cutoff had not yet elapsed when Defendants filed their motion, however, and Plaintiffs' deposition of a 30(b)(6) witness regarding those same policies is set to occur on July 2.*fn1 This Court has clearly recognized the relevance of the policies. E.g., Dkt. # 149 at 3 ("Defendants argue that the CDCR policies are not relevant because Plaintiffs' claims relate to KVSP's policies. This argument is without merit, as there can be little doubt that CDCR's policies influenced KVSP's supplemental policy."). Thus, Plaintiffs believe that the evidence from the deposition is likely to play an important role in their opposition. The parties agree that a three-week extension should give Plaintiffs sufficient time to analyze the transcript, conduct any necessary follow-up, and prepare their opposition.
An extension is also warranted based on the schedule for expert disclosures. Disclosures will occur on July 17. Dkt. # 129. However, July 17 is just two business days after the current deadline for the opposition, and Plaintiffs' opposition will rely on expert declarations. Plaintiffs wish to manage the burden on their experts, and believe under the circumstances that it would be more appropriate to allow their experts to first prepare their disclosures, and then, turn to the specifics of Defendants' motion. Defendants agree that the requested extension strikes an appropriate balance.
Finally, there is good cause because the requested extension is relatively short in duration. All parties wish to efficiently resolve the matter, and previous extensions regarding this motion have not been requested. As noted, the deadline for hearing dispositive motions is not until November 5, 2012. Dkt. # 129. Thus, the proposed schedule has no effect on any other Court-ordered deadlines in this case.
Accordingly, the parties request that the Court order the following schedule, or such other dates as are convenient for the Court:
Event Current Schedule Proposed Schedule
Expert Disclosures July 17, 2012 July 17, 2012 Plaintiffs' Opposition to July 13, 2012 August 3, 2012 Defendants' Motion For Summary Judgment
Reply In Support Of Defendants' July 20, 2012 August 10, 2012 Motion For Summary Judgment
Hearing re Defendants' Motion July 27, 2012 August 17, 2012 For Summary Judgment (10:00 a.m) (10:00 a.m)
DATED: June 26, 2012 BINGHAM McCUTCHEN LLP By: /s/ Manu Pradhan Attorney for Plaintiffs DATED: June 26, 2012 OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL By: /s/ Kelli Hammond Attorney for Defendants
Based on the parties' stipulation, this Court:
1. VACATES the July 27, 2012 hearing on defendants' summary judgment motion;
2. ORDERS plaintiffs, no later than August 3, 2012, to file and serve summary judgment opposition papers;
3. ORDERS defendants, no later than August 10, 2012, to file and serve summary judgment reply papers; and
4. LIMITS plaintiffs' opposition points and authorities to 25 pages and defendants' reply points and authorities to 10 pages.
Pursuant to its practice, this Court will consider defendants' summary judgment motion on the record without a hearing.
IT IS SO ORDERED.