UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
July 23, 2012
CEMEX, INC., A WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF CEMEX , S.A.B. DE C.V.,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge: John A. Mendez
Complaint Filed: August 31, 2011Trial Date: March 18, 2013
THE PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES TO AMEND
WHEREAS, Plaintiff, on January 24, 2012, submitted correspondence to the Social Security Administration to obtain Plaintiff's records, which are necessary and pertinent to this litigation. When Plaintiff received no response from the Social Security Administration, by late April 2012, Plaintiff's counsel sent follow-up correspondence on May 2, 2012, wherein requesting an update upon Plaintiff's request for records from this Administration. In response to Plaintiff's second request of records, an employee, "Cynthia," of the Social Security Administration, contacted ted with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com
Plaintiff's counsel of record on May 24, 2012, requesting confirmation that Plaintiff's counsel would assume responsibility for the costs of the reproduction of Plaintiff's Social Security file. Plaintiff's counsel confirmed that it would assume responsibility for the reasonable cost of reproduction. In addition, Plaintiff's counsel requested a date of when Plaintiff's counsel could anticipate receipt of said file. Cynthia, stated that she could not provide Plaintiff's counsel with a specific date or time frame of when the file would be provided to Plaintiff's counsel, based upon the fact the file, according to Cynthia, was voluminous and predominately a paper file, which requires an employee to comb the entire file as Plaintiff was not entitled to all the documents contained within this file. Plaintiff's counsel sent follow-up correspondence regarding the status of production on July 17, 2012. To date, neither Plaintiff, nor his counsel, have received a copy of his Social Security Administration file.
WHEREAS, on March 12, 2012, the Defendant requested that Plaintiff execute a consent form for release of information, to be submitted to the Social Security Administration.
WHEREAS, Plaintiff and the Defendant both agree that the Social Security Administration file is crucial and necessary to the prosecution and/or defense of this matter. Therefore, good cause exists to amend the Pretrial Scheduling Order.
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, by and between the parties hereto, that the expert disclosure, supplemental/rebuttal expert witness disclosure, discovery deadline, the deadline for filing dispositive motions, the date for hearing dispositive motions, the date of the final pre-trial conference, and the trial date shall be extended by three months or more, if the Court deems that appropriate. Based on the Court's current Scheduling Order, the parties agree to the following new deadlines, which would allow the parties sufficient time to obtain the Social Security Administration file and complete discovery in this matter:
Deadline Current Deadline Proposed Deadline
Expert Disclosure August 10, 2012 November 9, 2012 Supplemental/Rebuttal Experts August 17, 2012 November 16, 2012 Discovery Deadline October 12, 2012 January 11, 2013
Deadline for Filing Dispositive December 12, 2012 February 20, 2013 Motions Hearing on Dispositive Motions January 9, 2013 at 9:30 a.m. March 20, 2013 at 9:30 a.m. Final Pre-Trial Conference February 8, 2013 at 11:00 a.m. April 26, 2013 at 10:00 a.m. Trial March 18, 2013 at 9:00 a.m June 3, 2013 at 9:00 a.m.
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
Dated: July__, 2012 PERKINS & ASSOCIATES By: Robin K. Perkins Natalia D. Asbill Attorneys for Plaintiff Ronald Butler Dated: July ___, 2012 FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI LLP By: Richard R. Mainland Tarifa B. Laddon Attorneys for Defendants CEMEX, Inc.
As good cause exists, due to the parties' inability to obtain necessary and relevant discovery timely from the Social Security Administration, the Court hereby modifies its Pretrial Scheduling Order in this matter to continue the deadlines as set forth above or as hereinafter issued and/or modified by this Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED (AS MODIFIED BY THE COURT)
John A. Mendez UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.