Barker v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

          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 ...