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.

Robert Mitchell v. Tom Felker

February 8, 2013

ROBERT MITCHELL,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
TOM FELKER, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



Action filed: May 30, 2008

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER AMENDING SCHEDULING ORDER

Plaintiffs and Defendants, through their counsel of record, stipulate to an amended pre-trial schedule, and request an order of the Court as follows:

1. The Second Amended Complaint in this action seeks injunctive relief regarding the official policy of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR") regarding modified programs and/or lockdowns.

2. On August 28, 2012, the Court entered a Scheduling Order, setting pre-trial deadlines, including a fact-discovery cutoff of March 13, 2013. See Dkt. 121.

3. On August 28, 2012, the day discovery opened, Plaintiffs served Requests for Production and Interrogatories on Defendants. On October 1, 2012, Defendants served Responses to Plaintiffs' Requests for Production and Interrogatories. On October 3, 2012, Plaintiff moved to compel discovery, and the parties filed a Joint Statement on October 17, 2012.

4. On October 26, 2012, the Court ordered that Defendants shall produce documents on a rolling basis according to the schedule proposed by Defendants in the parties' Joint Statement, which proposed that all documents would be produced by November 26, 2012. The Court also ordered the parties to meet and confer about electronic discovery.

5. Since the Court's Order, the parties have continued to meet and confer about discovery. Defendants have been producing documents on a rolling basis. However, Defendants' document production is still ongoing and not yet complete. Defendants expect to finish their production at the end of March - after the discovery cutoff - and Plaintiffs have requested that production be completed earlier.

6. On January 3, 2013, Plaintiffs noticed 14 additional depositions which have not yet been scheduled. Defendants proposed dates for some of these depositions, which begin on February 22 and continue through March 21 - after the discovery cut-off. Plaintiffs also anticipate noticing the depositions of the named Defendants in this action.

7. Given the discovery that remains outstanding, that Defendants do not expect to finish their production until the end of March, that Plaintiffs will then need more time to review and analyze those documents and determine if additional discovery or depositions are necessary based on the documents, and that Defendants proposed dates for depositions to take place after the discovery cutoff, Plaintiffs requested a 30 day extension to the pre-trial deadlines in the Court's Scheduling Order. Defendants agreed and proposed a 45 day extension.

8. The parties also agree that, given the outstanding discovery and the need for fact discovery to be completed to evaluate the need for experts, the deadline for expert disclosures should be extended by an additional 15 days, or by 60 days total.

9. THEREFORE, the parties stipulate and propose that pre-trial schedule be amended as follows:

A. Non-Expert Discovery

1. The deadline to complete all non-expert discovery, formerly March 13, 2013, shall ...


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.