Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-01125/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-01125-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

Stipulation and Order to Modify Scheduling Order – Case No. 2:11-cv-1125-MCE-JFM-P 1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Pursuant to Local Rule 143 the parties stipulate and ask the Court to Order that the 

scheduling order entered on May 6, 2012 (ECF No. 36) be modified by extending the discovery 

and dispositive motions deadlines by an additional 60 days, to October 23, 2013, and January 15, 

2014, respectively.

“The district court is given broad discretion in supervising the pretrial phase of 

litigation.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir. 1992) (citation 

and internal quotation marks omitted). Rule 16(b) provides that “[a] schedule may be modified 

only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). “The schedule may 

be modified ‘if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the 

extension.’” Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002) 

(quoting Johnson, 975 F.2d at 607).

BRANDON ALEXANDER FERNANDEZ,

Plaintiff,

vs.

CALIFORNIA DEP’T OF CORR., et al., 

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 2:11-cv-1125-MCE-JFM-P

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO

MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER

Case 2:11-cv-01125-MCE-KJN Document 43 Filed 07/23/13 Page 1 of 2
Stipulation and Order to Modify Scheduling Order – Case No. 2:11-cv-1125-MCE-JFM-P 2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Good cause exists for this extension. The parties are attempting to schedule the 

deposition of the Plaintiff at Folsom State Prison where he was recently transferred. In addition 

the parties are likely to schedule the deposition of Defendant Pomozal, and possibly others, in 

Susanville, California. Plaintiff anticipates that Defendant Pomozal’s responses to written 

discovery requests will identify one or more witnesses who will need to be deposed. The 

pendency of the motions to dismiss of Defendants Barnes and Cate is an additional reason that 

discovery be extended. Finally, counsel for Plaintiff requests the extension in order to

accommodate the academic calendar of the UC Davis Civil Rights Clinic, in order that Clinic 

students be allowed to participate in discovery in this matter during the fall 2013 semester.

For these reasons, the parties ask the Court to extend the discovery deadline to October 

23, 2013, and the dispositive motion deadline to January 15, 2014.

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: July 19, 2013 /S/ Carter C. White

____________________

Carter C. White

Attorney for Plaintiff, Brandon A. Fernandez

Dated: July 19, 2013 /S/ R. Lawrence Bragg

____________________

R. Lawrence Bragg

Deputy Attorney General

Attorney for Defendants Cate, Pomazal, and Barnes

IT IS SO ORDERED. The discovery deadline is extended to October 23, 2013, and the 

dispositive motion deadline is extended to January 15, 2014. 

Dated: July 22, 2013

fern1125.po

Case 2:11-cv-01125-MCE-KJN Document 43 Filed 07/23/13 Page 2 of 2