Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-03290/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-03290-0/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GWEN ROWE-LEE SYKES, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

BERKELEY POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al.,

Defendants. _______________________________________

No. C 04-3290-SBA

 

ORDER

[Docket No. 22]

On January 12, 2006, the parties in the above-referenced matter filed a Stipulation to

Continue Trial Date and Modify Pretrial Preparation Dates ("Stipulation to Continue Trial Date")

[docket no. 22.] In their Stipulation to Continue Trial Date, the parties request a seven month

continuance of the trial date, with other pretrial deadlines to be re-set accordingly, due to: 1) the

significant amount of discovery remaining to be conducted, 2) their wish to engage in further

discussions to try to settle or narrow the issues for trial, and 3) the fact that one of the plaintiffs'

attorneys, Mr. John Till, will be out on paternity leave during late February and all of March, 2006

and thus unavailable.

In its original Order for Pretrial Preparation filed on January 20, 2005, the Court set this

matter for trial on February 13, 2006. On August 22, 2005, the parties jointly requested that the

Court postpone the trial approximately four and a half months to June 26, 2006, and that it re-set the

other pretrial deadlines accordingly, due to the significant amount of discovery left to complete and

the parties' desire to explore settlement discussions. On August 30, 2005, the Court granted that

request. In the instant Stipulation to Continue Trial Date, two of the three reasons for the parties'

requested continuance are the exact same reasons they originally proffered in the first request for a

Case 4:04-cv-03290-SBA Document 24 Filed 01/19/06 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

continuance. The parties fail to inform the Court as to how they have managed their time since the

first continuance was granted and fail to address why an additional seven months is necessary to

prepare for trial. Namely, the Stipulation to Continue Trial Date does not indicate what discovery (if

any) has been completed and what specifically remains to be done. It also fails to inform the Court

what steps the parties have taken in their settlement discussions, and what specifically they envision

occurring if this second continuance were granted. Finally, while the parties state Mr. Till's

anticipated leave of absence will have a significant adverse impact on the plaintiffs' trial

preparations, the Court notes that plaintiffs have retained two firms in this matter and thus have

resources at their disposal with which to manage during Mr. Till's absence. 

Consequently, the parties request to continue the trial date in their Stipulation to Continue

Trial Date and Modify Pretrial Preparation Dates is DENIED. All pretrial and trial deadlines remain

in full force and effect.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 Dated: 1/18/06 SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG

United States District Judge

Case 4:04-cv-03290-SBA Document 24 Filed 01/19/06 Page 2 of 2