IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
January 16, 2013
JAMES J. PIERCE, AN INDIVIDUAL;
DAWN M. PIERCE, AN INDIVIDUAL,
COUNTY OF SIERRA, CALIFORNIA, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA;
OFFICE OF SHERIFF OF THE COUNTY OF SIERRA; JACOB ALLEN MURRAY, AN INDIVIDUAL;
BRAD S. DEMPSTER, AN INDIVIDUAL; AND, DOES 1 THROUGH 100, INCLUSIVE, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Garland E. Burrell, Jr. Senior United States District Judge
STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER REGARDING EXTENSION
OF EXPERT DISCLOSURE AND DISCOVERY CUT-OFF
Complaint Filed: August 26, 2011
COME NOW, the parties, through their attorneys of record, who hereby stipulate and move this Court to extend the expert and rebuttal expert disclosure dates to April 30 and May 20, 2013, respectively. The parties also request that discovery cut-off date be extended to May 20, 2013 to accommodate expert discovery.
This stipulation is based upon the following: 1. Extending the date for expert disclosure will comport with the parties intent when they previously recommended the current disclosure dates. In its original Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order, dated November 8, 2011, this Court set a trial date of August 27, 2013. Document 9. In its Order confirming federal court jurisdiction, dated September 13, 2012, this Court asked the parties to file a Joint Status Report recommending new pretrial dates in accordance with Local Rule 240. Document 31. On October 1, 2012, the parties proposed the present expert disclosure dates to accommodate a trial date of August 27, 2013. Document 32. However, in the Court's subsequent Order Modifying Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order of October 10, 2012, the trial date was moved to November 5, 2013. Document 33. As such, moving the disclosure dates would comport with the parties original intent and would be closer to the timelines set by the Court in its original Scheduling Order.
2. Extending the date for expert disclosure will promote judicial economy, avoid unnecessary motion practice and avoid prejudice to all parties. The condition of plaintiff, James Pierce, remains fluid. Mr. Pierce suffered substantial injuries, including comminuted fracture of the right femur, hip fracture, tibial plateau fracture and compound dislocation of his left elbow. Plaintiffs' counsel represents that he has treated continuously since the date of the accident, though at a lessened pace, for these injuries, and has had treatment as recently as December, 27, 2012. He currently has three follow-up appointments scheduled on January 14, 21 and 24, 2013.
The parties believe that any expert reports required by January 31, 2013, will, necessarily, be amended or supplemented as Mr. Pierce responds, or not, to ongoing treatment. While there is no assurance Mr. Pierce's condition will stabilize in the next two or three months, the extension of disclosure dates will lessen the likelihood the parties will have to motion this Court to re-depose experts based upon supplemental disclosures or reports.
Furthermore, the parties have scheduled a mediation for January 28, 2013. The parties have agreed to said mediation with the understanding that expert analyses and reports will not be finalized by that date, due to Mr. Pierce's ongoing treatment. However, the parties have agreed in good faith to attempt to resolve the case and either diminish or negate the need for further expenditures with regard to continued expert discovery and investigation.
3. Finally, the parties have acted diligently in preparing for the present expert disclosures. Indeed, it is through diligent preparation that the need for the present request became apparent. If the parties' request herein is denied, they could timely disclose experts and conduct expert discovery in the time allotted. Given the foregoing, however, counsel for the parties believe the requested extension would minimize both duplication of effort and prejudice to the parties and would lessen the need for the parties to motion this Court for subsequent relief. Finally, this is the first time either party has requested an extension of a deadline (except, as noted above, when ordered by the court to set new deadlines).
WHEREAS, it its original Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order of November 11, 2011, this Court set a trial date of August 27, 2013;
WHEREAS, this case was stayed and, thereafter, went into the Superior Court system for the State of California for discovery of, among other things, jurisdictional issues;
WHEREAS, in its order of September 13, 2012, this Court affirmed federal court jurisdiction and ordered the parties to submit a Joint Status Report to address "necessary scheduling changes to the provisions of Local Rule 240;"
WHEREAS, in an attempt to retain the August 27, 2013 trial date, the parties proposed new expert disclosure date of January 31, 2013, with a rebuttal expert disclosure date of February 28, 2013
WHEREAS, the trial date was subsequently reset to November 5, 2013 by this Court's order of October 10, 2012; and,
WHEREAS, based upon the November 5, 2013, trial date, and the lack of prejudice to either party, the parties believe that moving the dates for expert disclosure, rebuttal experts and discovery cut-off would be in the best interests of judicial efficiency and economy and would avoid the potential for prejudice to the parties.
BASED ON THE FOREGOING, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED BY THE PARTIES, THROUGH THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, as follows:
1. The parties request that the Court's Order Modifying Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order, dated October 10, 2012, be modified, as follows:
A. The date for disclosure of expert witnesses shall be April 30, 2013.
B. The date for disclosure of rebuttal expert witnesses shall be May 20, 2013.
C. The date for discovery cut-off shall be May 31, 2013 (which is approximately two (2) months before the Pre-Trial Conference).
IT IS SO STIPULATED AND AGREED.
/s/KURT A. FRANKE /s/STEPHEN HORAN LAW OFFICES OF KURT A. FRANKE PORTER * SCOTT 575 Mill Street 350 University Ave., Suite 200 Reno, Nevada 89502 Sacramento, California Attorney for Plaintiffs Attorney for County of Sierra, Sheriff of County of Sierra and Jacob A. Murray
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.