J.A.J. v. Jimenez

1 Panos Lagos, Esq. / SBN 61821 LAW OFFICES OF PANOS LAGOS 2 5032 Woodminster Lane Oakland, CA 94602-2614 3 510.530.4078 510.530.4725 (FAX) 4 E-mail: panos@panoslagoslaw.com 5 Sanjay S. Schmidt (SBN 247475) LAW OFFICE OF SANJAY S. SCHMIDT 6 1388 Sutter Street, Suite 810 San Francisco, CA 94109 7 Tel. (415) 563-8583 Fax (415) 223-9717 8 E-mail: ss@sanjayschmidtlaw.com 9 Attorneys for Plaintiffs, J. A. J., SANTANA JUAREZ JIMENEZ, 10 and TERESA GONZALEZ-VELAZQUEZ 11 XAVIER BECERRA, State Bar No. 118517 Attorney General of California 12 PETER A.MESHOT, State Bar No. 117061 Supervising Deputy Attorney General 13 DIANA ESQUIVEL, State Bar No. 202954 Deputy Attorney General 14 1300 I Street, Suite 125 P.O. Box 944255 15 Sacramento, CA 94244-2550 Telephone: (916) 210-7320 16 Facsimile: (916) 322-8288 E-mail: Diana.Esquivel@doj.ca.gov 17 Attorneys for Defendant Jimenez 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 19 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 20 J.A.J., a minor, etc., et al., ) Case No.:1:18-cv-01138-DAD-SKO ) 21 Plaintiffs, ) STIPULATION AND ORDER TO ) FURTHER MODIFY SCHEDULING 22 v. ) ORDER TO EXTEND THE EXPERT ) 23 State of California Highway Patrol Officer ) DISCOVERY DEADLINE EFRAIN JIMENEZ (ID #18075), et al., ) 24 ) (Doc. 51) Defendants. ) 25 ) 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// STIPULATION AND ORDER TO FURTHER M ODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER 1 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) and Local Rule 143, the parties, through their 2 respective counsel of record, stipulate and request the modification of this Court’s March 1, 2021 3 Order (ECF No. 50) to further extend the deadline by when expert discovery must be completed as 4 follows: 5 Event Date Requested Date Expert Disclosures March 31, 2021 April 7, 2021 [6] Rebuttal Expert Disclosures April 16, 2021 April 23, 2021 [7] 8 Good cause exists to grant this stipulated request because, despite the parties’ diligence, they 9 will not be able to disclose expert witnesses by the current deadline due to the ongoing COVID-19 10 pandemic and resulting restrictions. This requested modifications will not affect any other scheduling 11 deadline. 12 When an act must be done within a specified time, the court may, for good cause, extend the 13 time with or without motion or notice if the court acts, or if a request is made, before the original 14 time expires. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A). A scheduling order may be modified only upon a showing of 15 good cause and by leave of Court. Id. 16(b)(4); see, e.g., Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 16 F.2d 604, 609 (describing the factors a court should consider in ruling on such a motion). In 17 considering whether a party moving for a schedule modification has good cause, the Court primarily 18 focuses on the diligence of the party seeking the modification. Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609 (citing Fed. 19 R. Civ. P. 16 advisory committee’s notes of 1983 amendment). “The district court may modify the 20 pretrial schedule ‘if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the 21 amendment.’” Id. (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 advisory committee notes of 1983 amendment). 22 On April 5, 2019, the Court entered its initial Scheduling Order. (ECF No. 23.) Due to the onset of 23 the COVID-19 pandemic, the parties requested, and the Court granted, an extension of all the 24 scheduling deadlines and trial on April 20, 2020 (ECF No. 46.), the deadline to complete non-expert 25 discovery (ECF No. 48), and the deadline to complete expert discovery (ECF No. 50). The Amended 26 Scheduling Order (ECF No. 46) required the parties to complete expert discovery by May 7, 2021. 27 (Id.) It should be noted that, at that time, the full scope and expected duration of the pandemic and 28 concomitant public health measures and restrictions were unknown by public health and government STIPULATION AND ORDER TO FURTHER M ODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER 1 officials, let alone the parties and their respective counsel. As such, the Amended Scheduling Order 2 required the parties to complete expert discovery by May 7, 2021. (Id.) Distribution of the vaccines 3 did not commence until recently. At the present time, it is not yet known when the pandemic-related 4 restrictions can be lifted. Nevertheless, the parties have engaged in extensive written discovery, 5 including initial disclosures, interrogatories, and requests for production of documents. The parties 6 subpoenaed and obtained relevant records from third parties. Plaintiffs’ and the Guardian Ad Litem’s 7 depositions have been taken and completed, Defendant’s deposition was taken and completed on 8 January 22, 2021, the depositions of witnesses Rene Galindo, Julian Gonzales and Fernando 9 Ramirez, from the Branch & Vine where the incident occurred, were taken and completed on 10 February 4, 2021, the deposition of witness Luis Huaracha, from the Branch & Vine where the 11 incident occurred, was taken and completed on March 17, 2021, and the depositions of three non12 party CHP Officers Shandara Kensey, Isaac Martinez, and Scott Jobinger, were completed on 13 February 25, 2021, February 26, 2021, and March 26, 2021 respectively. Despite the parties’ 14 diligence in obtaining discovery, there is third-party discovery that still needs to be completed. The 15 parties seek to depose additional third-party witnesses, including two additional witnesses from the 16 Branch & Vine where the incident occurred, Decedent’s siblings, and Madera County Sheriff’s 17 Person Most Knowledge concerning the production of a video of the shooting incident. 18 Due to the ongoing national pandemic, scheduling and taking depositions is an onerous and 19 time-consuming task. For this reason, the parties sought and obtained this Court’s Order for more 20 time to complete fact discovery. For these same reasons, the parties now seek this Court’s Order to 21 extend the expert disclosure deadlines. In order for the parties’ experts to provide complete and 22 accurate opinions, the depositions of the remaining third-party witnesses need to be completed. Good 23 cause, therefore, exists to continue the deadline to disclose expert witnesses to April 7, 2021 and 24 rebuttal experts to April 23, 2021. [25] 26 IT IS SO STIPULATED. 27 /// 28 /// STIPULATION AND ORDER TO FURTHER M ODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER 1 Respectfully submitted, 2 Dated: March 29, 2021 LAW OFFICES OF PANOS LAGOS -and3 LAW OFFICE OF SANJAY S. SCHMIDT [4] 5 /s/Panos Lagos By: Panos Lagos, Esq. 6 Attorneys for Plaintiffs, J.A.J. and Teresa Gonzalez-Velazquez [7] 8 Dated: March 29, 2021 XAVIER BECERRA Attorney General of California 9 PETER A. MESHOT Supervising Deputy Attorney General [10] 11 /s/Diana Esquivel (as authorized 3/29/2021) DIANA ESQUIVEL 12 Deputy Attorney General Attorneys for Defendant Jimenez [13] 14 ORDER 15 Good cause appearing, the parties’ above-stipulated request to further modify the April 16 15, 2020 Amended Scheduling Order (Doc. 51) is GRANTED. 17 The expert-related deadlines are CONTINUED as follows: 18 Event Date Expert Disclosures April 7, 2021 19 Rebuttal Expert Disclosures April 23, 2021 [20] 21 In all other respects, the April 15, 2020 Amended Scheduling Order (Doc. 46) remains in 22 effect. [24] IT IS SO ORDERED. [25] Sheila K. Oberto [26] Dated: March 30, 2021 /s/ . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE [28] STIPULATION AND ORDER TO FURTHER M ODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER