United States District Court, E.D. California, Sacramento Division
William Barker, Plaintiff, represented by Scottlynn J.
Hubbard, IV, Disabled Advocacy Group, APLCS.
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation,
Defendant, represented by Diana Esquivel, Attorney
General's Office of the State of California.
Brian
Duffy, Defendant, represented by Diana Esquivel, Attorney
General's Office of the State of California.
K.
Allen, Defendant, represented by Diana Esquivel, Attorney
General's Office of the State of California.
W.
Perehoduk, Defendant, represented by Diana Esquivel, Attorney
General's Office of the State of California.
K.
Anger, Defendant, represented by Diana Esquivel, Attorney
General's Office of the State of California.
STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER TO VACATE SCHEDULING
ORDER
CAROLYN K. DELANEY, Magistrate Judge.
Under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) and Local Rule 143,
the parties, through their attorneys of record, agree to and
request that the Court vacate the March 9, 2016 Order setting
a July 18, 2016 deadline to file dispositive motions. (ECF
No. 24.) Good cause exists to grant this stipulation because
the parties are scheduled for a settlement conference with
Magistrate Judge Newman on November 9, 2016, and vacating the
pretrial motion deadline will conserve resources and allow
the parties to engage in more meaningful settlement
discussions.
A
scheduling order may be modified only upon a showing of good
cause and by leave of Court. Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b)(1)(A),
16(b)(4); see, e.g., Johnson v. Mammoth
Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (describing the
factors a court should consider in ruling on such a motion).
In considering whether a party moving for a schedule
modification has good cause, the Court primarily focuses on
the diligence of the party seeking the modification.
Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609 (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 16
advisory committee's notes of 1983 amendment). "The
district court may modify the pretrial schedule if it cannot
reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking
the amendment.'" Id. (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P.
16 advisory committee notes of 1983 amendment).
On
November 19, 2015, the Court issued a Scheduling Order in
this matter. (ECF No. 21.) On March 8, 2016, the parties
submitted a stipulation requesting that the scheduling
deadlines be continued by thirty days to allow the parties to
complete discovery. (ECF No. 23.) The Court granted the
parties' stipulated request and set an April 25, 2016
discovery deadline and a July 18, 2016 deadline to file
dispositive motion. (ECF No. 24.)
The
parties have timely and diligently completed discovery. Since
the completion of discovery, the parties have agreed to
pursue settlement discussions in this case and Barker v.
CDCR (E.D. Cal. No. 2:13-cv-01793-KJN). The Court has
already both these matters for a settlement conference on
November 9 with Magistrate Judge Newman. Both parties are
contemplating filing summary-judgment motions. The parties
may be less inclined to settle or enter into serious
settlement discussions if a dispositive motion is pending
that may dispose of the case or some of the claims. To avoid
incurring the expense of preparing dispositive motions, that
may become moot if the parties settle, the parties request
that the Court vacate the current pretrial-motion deadline,
and set a new deadline if the parties are unable to reach an
agreement on November 9, 2016.
IT IS
SO STIPULATED.
ORDER
Good
cause appearing, the parties' stipulated request to
vacate the March 9, 2016 Scheduling ...