United States District Court, N.D. California
LYNNETTE FRARY, Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of Anthony Brandon Carmignani, Deceased, JAMIE BALL, as Natural Guardian of Amaya Carmignani, a minor, and HEATHER HOWARD, Plaintiffs,
COUNTY OF MARIN, et al., Defendants.
Thomas F. Bertrand, State Bar No. 056560, Richard W. Osman, State Bar No. 167993, BERTRAND, FOX & ELLIOT, San Francisco, California, Attorneys for Defendants, CITY OF NOVATO, CHIEF JOSEPH KREINS, OFFICER THOMAS MACKENZIE, OFFICER MICHAEL DUNN and OFFICER STEPHANIE COMMISTO.
Steven M. Perl, State Bar No. 100074, OFFICE OF THE COUNTY COUNSEL, San Rafael, CA, Attorneys for Defendants COUNTY OF MARIN, SHERIFF ROBERT T. DOYLE, DEPUTY RACHEL HAMMER, DEPUTY BRIAN JOHNSON, DEPUTY ANTHONY THUNE, DEPUTY TOM MCCLOSKEY, SHANNON FETTERLY, SUSAN LESHER AND RICHARD DUNCKEL.
David L. Fiol, State Bar No. 203546, BRENT, FIOL & NOLAN LLP, San Francisco, California, Attorneys for Plaintiffs, LYNNETTE FRARY AND JAMIE BALL.
Charles A. Bonner, State Bar No. 85413, A. Cabral Bonner, State Bar No. 247528, BONNER & BONNER, Sausalito, CA, Attorneys for Plaintiffs, HEATHER HOWARD.
AMENDED STIPULATED REQUEST FOR ORDER CHANGING EXPERT DISCOVERY DEADLINES AND DISPOSITIVE MOTION DEADLINES [LOCAL RULE 6-2]
MARIA-ELENA JAMES, Magistrate Judge.
WHEREAS, fact discovery in this matter closed on January 17, 2014, and
WHEREAS, plaintiffs and the County defendants thereafter engaged in a meet and confer process to try to resolve disputes regarding plaintiffs' request to examine a portion of the County Jail and whether a County PMK deposition will go forward and if so, on what topics, and
WHEREAS, on January 24, 2014 the County and plaintiffs submitted one joint letter to this Court detailing plaintiffs' motion to compel the above discovery and the County's opposition thereto and seeking to have this Court resolve the dispute, and
WHEREAS, on the same date, plaintiffs submitted a letter to this Court detailing their motion to compel compliance with a subpoena issued to AT&T, and
WHEREAS, on January 27, 2014, plaintiffs and the County submitted a second joint letter regarding plaintiff's motion to compel an inspection of the jail and also detailing the County's opposition thereto,
WHEREAS, a decision on what additional discovery, if any will be permitted and completion of that discovery is necessary before the parties can complete their expert reports which currently are scheduled to be exchanged on February 28, 2014 (this date was ordered pursuant to the parties' 2/10/14 stipulation to extend discovery dates), and
WHEREAS, regardless of the outcome of the outstanding discovery disputes between plaintiffs and the County, because the parties and their experts have not finalized expert reports because they presently are uncertain of what, if any, additional information will be forthcoming through additional discovery, all parties agree and stipulate that the parties need the requested extensions of the expert disclosure deadlines in order to have adequate time for the experts to finalize their required reports, and
WHEREAS, the parties have agreed upon a proposed amended case management schedule with amendments affecting only expert discovery (extending each expert discovery deadline by 30 days), the dispositive motion deadlines, and no other court deadlines will be affected, and
THEREFORE, pursuant to Local Civil Rules Nos. 6-1 and 6-2, the parties hereby agree that the case schedule may ...