Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01819/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01819-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

1

James D. Weakley, Esq. Bar No. 082853

Brande L. Gustafson, Esq. Bar No. 267130

Weakley & Arendt, LLP

1630 East Shaw Ave., Suite 176

Fresno, California 93710

Telephone: (559) 221-5256

Facsimile: (559) 221-5262

Email: Jim@walaw-fresno.com

Email: Brande@walaw-fresno.com

Attorneys for Defendants, City of Clovis, Officer Cesar Gonzalez, Officer Eric Taifane, 

Officer Angel Velasquez, and Officer Steve Cleaver

Charles A. Piccuta (56010)

Charles Tony Piccuta (258333)

PICCUTA LAW GROUP, LLP

400 West Franklin Street

Monterey, California 93940

Telephone: (83 l) 920-3111

Facsimile: (831) 920-3112

e-mail: chuck@Piccutalaw.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff, George Michael Macias, Jr.

Panos Lagos (61821)

The Law Offices of Panos Lagos

5032 Woodminster Lane

Oakland, CA 94602

Telephone: (510) 530-4078

Facsimile: (510) 530-4725

Email: panoslagos@aol.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff, George Michael Macias, Jr.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GEORGE MICHAEL MACIAS, JR.,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

STEVE CLEAVER, CESAR GONZALEZ, 

ERIC TAIFANE, ANGEL VELASQUEZ, 

THE CITY OF CLOVIS and DOES 1-10, 

inclusive,inclusive,

 Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO. 1:13-CV-001819-BAM

ORDER DENYING STIPULATION TO 

MODIFY THE AMENDED SCHEDULING 

ORDER 

(Doc. 44) 

The Honorable Barbara A. McAuliffe

THE PARTIES, through their respective counsel, have stipulated to modify the Amended 

Case 1:13-cv-01819-BAM Document 86 Filed 02/18/16 Page 1 of 4
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

2

Scheduling Order (Doc. No. 44) to allow them to take the depositions for the following 

individuals:

1) Sergeant James Boldt

2) Corporal Joshua Kirk

3) Mark King

4) Lawrence Brookter

5) Gilbert Ramirez, MD

6) Carlos Iniguez, RN

7) Dr. Ronald Kleyn

8) Roy Rodgers

9) Michael Olague

10)Joe Martin, DC

11) Greg Connor

12) Sergeant Curt Fleming

13) Sergeant Jorge Gomez

14) Sergeant Corporal Aranans

15)Jorge Gilblanco

The current deadline for non-expert discovery is February 5, 2016. The parties stipulate 

that the non-expert discovery deadline be extended to March 25, 2016 just for purposes of

deposing the foregoing individuals.

THE PARTIES have further stipulated to modify the Amended Scheduling Order (Doc. 

No. 44) as follows: Current Date New Date

Expert Witness Disclosure: March 4, 2016 April 8, 2016

Supplemental Expert Disclosure: March 18, 2016 April 22, 2016

Expert Discovery Cutoff: May 2, 2016 May 20, 2016

Pretrial Motion Filing Deadline: May 20, 2016 June 10, 2016

Pre-Trial Conference: August 10, 2016 No Change

Trial: September 27, 2016 No Change

Case 1:13-cv-01819-BAM Document 86 Filed 02/18/16 Page 2 of 4
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

3

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

Dated: February 16, 2016 WEAKLEY & ARENDT, LLP

By: /s/ Brande L. Gustafson 

James D. Weakley

Brande L. Gustafson

Attorneys for Defendants 

Dated: February 14, 2016 PICCUTA LAW GROUP, LLP

THE LAW OFFICES OF PANOS LAGOS

By: /s/Charles Tony Piccuta(As authorized on 2/14/16) 

Charles A. Piccuta

Charles Tony Piccuta

Panos Lagos

Attorneys for Plaintiff

ORDER

The Parties’ Stipulation and Proposed Order to continue the discovery and pretrial

deadlines is DENIED. (Doc. 85). A scheduling order may be modified only for good cause. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b). The parties’ request for a schedule modification provides no explanation 

as to why the existing discovery deadlines cannot be met. Thus, the parties’ request fails to 

comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4). Further, Local Rule 144(d) cautions 

parties against delaying until the last moment to seek extensions. While parties are required to 

seek an extension of time well before the deadline has expired, the parties here waited until two 

weeks after fact discovery closed to file a request to take fifteen additional depositions. Such 

conduct is looked upon with disfavor and serves as an independent ground to deny the 

stipulation. See Local Rule 144(d); In Hardy v. County of El Dorado, 2008 WL 3876329 (E.D. 

Cal. Aug. 20, 2008). Lastly, the requested relief would unnecessarily burden the Court with 

compressed discovery and motion deadlines. For these reasons, the parties’ stipulation is 

DENIED without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 18, 2016 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01819-BAM Document 86 Filed 02/18/16 Page 3 of 4
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

4

Case 1:13-cv-01819-BAM Document 86 Filed 02/18/16 Page 4 of 4