Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01617/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01617-9/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES LORAN QUINN,

Plaintiff,

vs.

FRESNO COUNTY SHERIFF, FRESNO

COUNTY PROBATION DEPARTMENT,

OFFICER DAVID ALANIS, OFFICER

LEONARD RICHERT, FRESNO COUNTY

DISTRICT ATTORNEY, FRESNOCOUNTY

JAIL, ET AL. and DOES 1 to 100

INCLUSIVE,

Defendants.

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO.: 1:10-CV-01617-LJO-BAM

STIPULATIONANDORDERAMENDINGTHE

SCHEDULING ORDER TO EXTEND THE

TIME FOR EXPERT DISCOVERY,

DESIGNATION OF EXPERT WITNESSES,

AND RULE 26 REPORTS

IT IS HEREBYSTIPULATED between the parties, through theirrespective counsel, and ordered

by this Court, that the Scheduling Order, Doc. No. 47, be amended and the expert discovery cutoff, date

for designating expert witnesses, and production of their Rule 26 expert reports be moved from March

9, 2012, to March 14, 2012, and the expert discovery cutoff date be moved to April 6, 2012. There is

good cause for extending these dates. First, it will allow the parties to complete discovery and ensure

their experts have ample time to consider all information prior to preparing their Rule 26 expert reports;

given Plaintiff identified additional potential witnesses and documents at his February 16, 2012,

deposition. Secondly, the parties will be prevented from conducting expert depositions since expert

discovery is scheduled cutoff on the same day as the parties are scheduled to exchange expert

designations and Rule 26 reports. As such, it appears that the deadline agreed to in the Scheduling

Order, with regard to designation of expert witnesses and preparation of their Rule 26 expert reports, was

a bit too optimistic. Furthermore, the proposed amended deadlines do not alter the pretrial conference

Case 1:10-cv-01617-LJO-BAM Document 62 Filed 03/09/12 Page 1 of 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

nor the trial date as agreed to in the Scheduling Order, Doc. No. 47.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

DATED: March 9, 2012 WEAKLEY & ARENDT, LLP

By: /s/ Roy C. Santos 

James J. Arendt

Roy C. Santos

Attorneys for Defendants

DATED: March 9, 2012 By: /s/ David M. Hollingsworth 

David M. Hollingsworth

Attorney for Plaintiff

ORDER

Based on the above stipulation of the parties, and good cause appearing, the Court ORDERS

as follows:

1. The date for designating expert witnesses, and production of their Rule 26 expert

reports is extended from March 9, 2012, to March 14, 2012;

2. The expert discovery cutoff date is extended from March 9, 2012 to April 6, 2012. 

3. Defendants’ ex parte application to amend the scheduling order (Doc. 60) is DENIED

as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 9, 2012 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe 

10c20k UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 1:10-cv-01617-LJO-BAM Document 62 Filed 03/09/12 Page 2 of 2