Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01004/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01004-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1983 Civil Rights

---

1

____________________________________________________________________________________

Stipulation to Continue Discovery and Pretrial Deadlines and Trial

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

THERESA A. GOLDNER, COUNTY COUNSEL

By: MARK L. NATIONS, CHIEF DEPUTY (SBN 101838)

Kern County Administrative Center

1115 Truxtun Avenue, Fourth Floor

Bakersfield, CA 93301

Telephone 661-868-3800

Fax 661-868-3805

Attorneys for Defendants County of Kern, 

Tommy J. Robins, Jeremy Storar

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARIA D. CHAVEZ AND RENE CHAVEZ, 

individually and as the Successors-inInterest of CHRISTIAN CHAVEZ, 

Deceased,

Plaintiffs,

vs. 

COUNTY OF KERN, TOMMY J. ROBINS, 

JEREMY STORAR, 

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:12-cv-01004 LJO JLT

STIPULATION TO CONTINUE 

DISCOVERY AND PRETRIAL 

DEADLINES AND TRIAL 

The parties, by and through their attorneys of record, stipulate as follows:

Depositions of independent witnesses that have been scheduled thus far by 

defendants have not gone forward due to the witnesses having relocated. One 

eyewitness, Yesenia Ocampo, was located in Oakland and served with a subpoena, 

but she has retained legal counsel and has declared herself unavailable for her 

scheduled deposition date of May 24. Her deposition is being rescheduled for 

sometime in July due to the congested calendars of counsel. 

Due to the difficulty encountered thus far in locating some of the witnesses and 

in scheduling depositions, it has become increasingly apparent that the parties will not 

be able to complete discovery by the time of the scheduled cut-off date of September 

6. Therefore, the parties agree to modify the current case schedule by extending the 

Case 1:12-cv-01004-JLT Document 18 Filed 05/22/13 Page 1 of 5
2

____________________________________________________________________________________

Stipulation to Continue Discovery and Pretrial Deadlines and Trial

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

deadlines out 90 days as follows:

 Non-expert discovery cut-off be postponed from September 6, 2013 to 

December 5, 2013

 Expert disclosure be postponed from August 30, 2013 to November 28, 2013

 Supplemental expert disclosure be postponed from September 18, 2013 to 

December 17, 2013

 Expert discovery cut-off be postponed from October 4, 2013 to January 2, 2014

 Non-dispositive motion filing deadline be postponed from October 11, 2013 to

January 9, 2014

 Non-dispositive motion hearing deadline be postponed from November 15, 2013

to February 13, 2014

 Dispositive motion filing deadline be postponed from December 6, 2013 to March 

6, 2014

 Dispositive motion hearing deadline be postponed from January 21, 2014 to April 

21, 2014

 Pretrial conference be postponed from March 6, 2014 to June 4, 2014

 Trial be postponed from April 22, 2014 to July 21, 2014

The parties all understand and agree that the proposed new dates are subject to 

modification by the court.

Dated: May 21, 2013 THERESA A. GOLDNER, COUNTY COUNSEL

By: /s/ Mark L. Nations 

Mark L. Nations, Chief Deputy

Attorneys for Defendants County of Kern, 

Tommy J. Robins and Jeremy Storar

Dated: May 20, 2013 RODRIGUEZ & ASSOCIATES

By: /s/ Miguel Flores 

Miguel Flores

Attorney for Plaintiffs Maria D. Chavez

and Rene Chavez

Case 1:12-cv-01004-JLT Document 18 Filed 05/22/13 Page 2 of 5
3

____________________________________________________________________________________

Stipulation to Continue Discovery and Pretrial Deadlines and Trial

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

ORDER

Before the Court is the stipulation to amend the scheduling order. (Doc. 16) The

stipulation indicates counsel does not believe they will be able to complete discovery 

within the scheduled period due to the difficulty in locating these witnesses and the busy 

calendars of counsel. 1 (Doc. 15 1-2) 

In addition, out of fairness, the Court believes it is necessary to forewarn litigants 

that the Fresno Division of the Eastern District of California now has the heaviest District 

Court Judge caseload in the entire nation. While the Court will use its best efforts to 

resolve this case and all other civil cases in a timely manner, the parties are 

admonished that not all of the parties’ needs and expectations may be met as 

expeditiously as desired. As multiple trials are now being set to begin upon the same 

date, parties may find their case trailing with little notice before the trial begins. The law 

requires that the Court give any criminal trial priority over civil trials or any other matter. 

The Court must proceed with a criminal trial even if a civil trial was filed earlier and set 

for trial first. Continuances of any civil trial under these circumstances will no longer be 

entertained, absent a specific and stated finding of good cause. All parties should be 

informed that any civil trial set to begin during the time a criminal trial is proceeding will 

trail the completion of the criminal trial. 

The parties are reminded of the availability of a United States Magistrate Judge to 

conduct all proceedings in this action. A United States Magistrate Judge is available to 

conduct trials, including entry of final judgment, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 28 U.S.C. 636(c), 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 73, and Local Rule 305. The same jury pool is used by 

both United States Magistrate Judges and United States District Court Judges. Any 

appeal from a judgment entered by a United States Magistrate Judge is taken directly to 

the United States Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit. However, the parties are hereby 

 

1 Notably, the stipulation fails to indicate when the parties discovered the impediments to completing the 

discovery in a timely fashion As of April 3, 2013, discovery was proceeding smoothly and the parties were 

beginning to schedule needed depositions of the parties and third-party witnesses. (Doc. 13 at 3) 

Case 1:12-cv-01004-JLT Document 18 Filed 05/22/13 Page 3 of 5
4

____________________________________________________________________________________

Stipulation to Continue Discovery and Pretrial Deadlines and Trial

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

informed that no substantive rulings or decisions will be affected by whether a party 

chooses to consent.

Finally, the Fresno Division of the Eastern District of California, whenever possible, 

is utilizing United States Article III District Court Judges from throughout the nation as 

Visiting Judges. Pursuant to the Local Rules, Appendix A, reassignments will be random, 

and the parties will receive no advance notice before their case is reassigned to an Article 

III District Court Judge from outside of the Eastern District of California. 

Therefore, the parties are directed to discuss with their clients the increased costs 

that will likely result from the new policies of this Court as well as the unpredictability of the 

reassignment of this case to a visiting District Judge and consider consenting to 

Magistrate Judge jurisdiction to conduct all further proceedings, including trial.

1. Within 10 days of the date of this order, counsel SHALL file a 

consent/decline form (provided by the Court at the inception of this case) indicating 

whether they will consent to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge.

2. The parties having stipulated and good cause appearing therefor, the 

Court ORDERS the scheduling order dated October 4, 2013 (Doc. 10) modified as 

follows:

a. Non-expert discovery SHALL be completed no later than

December 5, 2013;

b. Joint expert disclosure SHALL be made no later than November 

28, 2013;

c. Rebuttal expert disclosure SHALL be made no later than 

December 17, 2013;

d. Expert discovery SHALL be completed no later than January 2, 

2014;

e. Non-dispositive motions SHALL be filed no later than January 9, 

2014 and heard no later than February 6, 2014;

Case 1:12-cv-01004-JLT Document 18 Filed 05/22/13 Page 4 of 5
5

____________________________________________________________________________________

Stipulation to Continue Discovery and Pretrial Deadlines and Trial

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

f. Dispositive motions SHALL be filed no later than February 21, 

2014 and heard no later than April 10, 2014;

g. The pretrial conference is continued to June 4, 2014 at 8:30 a.m., 

courtroom 4;

h. The trial is continued to July 29, 2014 at 8:30 a.m., courtroom 4;

No further amendments to the scheduling order will be considered without a 

showing of exceptional good cause.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 22, 2013 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-01004-JLT Document 18 Filed 05/22/13 Page 5 of 5