KEVIN B. BRIGGS, County Counsel, MICHAEL R. LINDEN, Deputy County Counsel-State Bar No. 192485 FRESNO COUNTY COUNSEL, Fresno, California, Attorneys for Defendant COUNTY OF FRESNO.
VAUGHN LEGAL GROUP Barak Vaughn, Attorney for Plaintiff.
STIPULATION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER; ORDER THEREON.
MICHAEL J. SENG, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff GENERAL SECURITY SERVICES CORPORATION (hereinafter "Plaintiff") and defendant COUNTY OF FRESNO (hereinafter "Defendant") hereby present the following Stipulation to Modify the current Scheduling Order in the above-captioned action to continue the existing trial date.
WHEREAS, on September 29, 2011, the Court issued its initial Scheduling Order. In said order, the trial was set for January 29, 2013.
WHEREAS, on October 14, 2011, the parties consented to have Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng be the judge for all purposes in this case.
WHEREAS, on June 14, 2012, the Court issued an order, pursuant to the parties' stipulation, to continue the existing trial date to April 1, 2013.
WHEREAS, on February 19, 2013, counsel for parties tentatively agreed on behalf of their clients to engage in a settlement process. Under this process, the parties will first meet and confer to determine the extent of the existing controversy. Once this determination is made, it is the intention of the parties to engage in private mediation. Due to the large number of pieces of electronic monitoring equipment subject to Plaintiff's overall claim, the factual inquiry needed for the settlement process will be extensive. As such, the parties believe that the current trial date of April 1, 2013 leaves insufficient time for this process.
WHEREAS, on February 20, 2013, the Court issued an order, pursuant to the parties' stipulation, continuing the trial date to August 6, 2013;
WHEREAS, on May 7, 2013, counsel for the parties agreed that due to the large number of pieces of electronic monitoring equipment subject to Plaintiff's overall claim, the factual inquiry between the parties has taken longer than anticipated. As such, the parties still desiring to conduct a meaningful settlement process and mediation, believe that the current trial date of August 6, 2013 will leave insufficient time for the settlement process.
WHEREAS, on May 7, 2013, counsel for the parties conferred regarding a new trial date. Based on the time needed for the above-described settlement process to continue, and the existing schedules for counsel, it was agreed that a trial date in October or November 2013 would be proposed.
WHEREAS, on May 7, 2013, counsel for Plaintiff contacted Laurie Yu, the Courtroom Deputy for Judge Seng, concerning the parties' proposed stipulation and order. Ms. Yu represented that the parties could propose November 19, 2013, as the new trial date.
WHEREAS, on August 30, 2013, counsel for the parties conferred regarding proposed mediators and conferred regarding a new trial date. The parties have been diligently accumulating information regarding the underlying equipment and have created spreadsheets outlining their respective positions to make any settlement discussions and mediation more productive. Counsel for the ...