Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00451/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00451-2/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 This matter was determined to be suitable for decision without *

oral argument. L.R. 78-230(h).

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARK RISSO; A.R., by and through )

her guardian ad litem, )

) 2:07-cv-451-GEB-DAD

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. ) ORDER*

)

COUNTY OF EL DORADO; CITY OF )

PLACERVILLE; GARY MATTHIES; GLORIA )

MAGANA; TRUDY KILLIAN; and TODD )

CARVOR, )

)

Defendants. )

)

On December 22, 2007, the parties filed a stipulation

requesting that the “discovery cut-off, pretrial and trial dates,”

which were set in the Rule 16 Scheduling Order, be vacated until the

Ninth Circuit has issued a decision in Beltran v. Santa Clara County,

505 F.3d 1006, 1007 (9th Cir. 2007) (granting rehearing en banc). The

parties further state that

[a]ll parties have been and continue to cooperate

in diligent discovery, but given the potential

impact of the Beltran decision in this case, the

Case 2:07-cv-00451-DAD Document 30 Filed 01/03/08 Page 1 of 3
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

time it may take for the [Ninth] Circuit to issue

a decision in that matter, the impact of the

holiday season and the recent death of a parent of

one of the parties on the ability to meet

deadlines on expert and rebuttal expert

disclosures, [the Rule 16 scheduling order dates

should be modified].

(Stipulation at 2:3-8.) 

The parties’ conclusory statements concerning the potential

impact of the Beltran decision on this case provides insufficient

reason to justify the modification of the Rule 16 Scheduling Order

they seek.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b) establishes that

scheduling orders may only be modified upon a showing of “good cause.” 

Counsel were cautioned in the Rule 16 Scheduling Order that “[a] mere

stipulation by itself to change dates does not constitute good cause.” 

(Scheduling Order at 6:12-11.) It is assumed, however, that the

recent death of a parent of one of the parties interfered with that

party’s ability to meet the prescribed expert disclosure deadlines. 

Therefore, the Rule 16 Scheduling Order is modified as follows:

(1) Each party shall comply with initial expert

disclosures authorized under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)

on or before February 8, 2008; 

(2) each party shall comply with rebuttal expert

disclosures on or before March 10, 2008; 

(3) discovery shall be completed by July 8, 2008; 

(4) the last hearing date for motions shall be September 8,

2008 at 9:00 a.m.; and

Case 2:07-cv-00451-DAD Document 30 Filed 01/03/08 Page 2 of 3
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

This modification to the Rule 16 scheduling order reduces the 1

amount of time between the trial commencement date of December 16, 2008,

and the final pretrial conference. Because of this reduction, it is

unlikely that a settlement conference supervised by a federal judge will

be scheduled in this action.

3

(5) the final pretrial conference is set for November 3,

2008, at 2:30 p.m.1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 2, 2008

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:07-cv-00451-DAD Document 30 Filed 01/03/08 Page 3 of 3