Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-01539/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-01539-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 25:640 Indian Tribal Rights

---

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

STIPULATION AND REQUEST FOR EXTENSION 1 Case No.: 1:20-cv-01539-AWI-SKO

XAVIER BECERRA

Attorney General of California

SARA J. DRAKE

Senior Assistant Attorney General

WILLIAM P. TORNGREN

Supervising Deputy Attorney General

COLIN A. WOOD

Deputy Attorney General

State Bar No. 267539

TIMOTHY M. MUSCAT

Deputy Attorney General

State Bar No. 148944

1300 I Street, Suite 125

P.O. Box 944255

Sacramento, CA 94244-2550

Telephone: (916) 210-7779

Fax: (916) 323-2319

E-mail: Timothy.Muscat@doj.ca.gov

Attorneys for Defendants

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BEAR RIVER BAND OF ROHNERVILLE 

RANCHERIA, a federally recognized Indian Tribe,

Plaintiff,

v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, and GAVIN NEWSOM

IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS GOVERNOR 

OF CALIFORNIA,

Defendants

Case No.: 1:20-cv-01539-AWI-SKO

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO 

MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER

(Doc. 35)

Action Filed: August 12, 2020

Pursuant to the United States District Court, Eastern District of California Local Rules, 

Rule 143, George Forman, attorney for plaintiff Bear River Band of Rohnerville Rancheria

(Plaintiff), on the one hand, and Timothy M. Muscat, Deputy Attorney General, attorney for 

defendant Gavin Newsom, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of California, and

defendant State of California (collectively, Defendants), on the other hand, stipulate as follows:

Case 1:20-cv-01539-KES-SKO Document 36 Filed 02/03/21 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

STIPULATION AND REQUEST FOR EXTENSION 2 Case No.: 1:20-cv-01539-AWI-SKO

On January 20, 2021, the Court filed the Scheduling Order in this case that established 

several due dates, including the filing of a Joint Record of Negotiations (Joint Record) on or 

before February 1, 2021. Counsel for Plaintiff prepared an initial Joint Record, and counsel for 

Defendants reviewed the initial Joint Record and requested the addition of several documents. 

The parties have been diligently working to meet the deadline. However, they want to ensure the 

Joint Record accurately reflects the history of negotiations between the parties that has resulted in 

a record in excess of 10,000 pages. The parties have requested no prior extension.

The parties jointly request that the court grant leave to file the Joint Record on Monday, 

February 8, 2021. This will give the parties sufficient time to finalize the last details of the Joint 

Record.

Granting this stipulation will not impact any other Scheduling Order due date. Under the 

Scheduling Order, the parties are required to file all dispositive pretrial motions no later than 

April 30, 2021. Filing the Joint Record on February 8, 2021, will provide the parties with 

sufficient time to comply with this April 30, 2021 deadline.

Case 1:20-cv-01539-KES-SKO Document 36 Filed 02/03/21 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

STIPULATION AND REQUEST FOR EXTENSION 3 Case No.: 1:20-cv-01539-AWI-SKO

Dated: February 1, 2021 Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ George Forman 

GEORGE FORMAN

FORMAN & ASSOCIATES

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Dated: February 1, 2021 XAVIER BECERRA

Attorney General of California

SARA J. DRAKE

Senior Assistant Attorney General

WILLIAM P. TORNGREN

Supervising Deputy Attorney General

COLIN WOOD

Deputy Attorney General

By: /s/ Timothy Muscat ______

TIMOTHY M. MUSCAT

Attorneys for Defendants

ORDER

The Court has reviewed the parties’ above Stipulation to Modify Scheduling Order. (Doc. 

35.) Pursuant to the Scheduling Order (Doc. 34), the “Joint Record of Negotiation” (the “Joint 

Record”) was to be filed on February 1, 2021, the same day on which the parties filed the 

present request for extension. Requests for extension are governed by Rule 144 of the Local 

Rules of the United States District Court, Eastern District of California (“Local Rules”). Local 

Rule 144(d) explains that “[r]equests for Court-approved extensions brought on the required 

filing date for the pleading or other document are looked upon with disfavor.” The parties are 

hereby ADMONISHED that any future requests for extensions of time shall be brought in 

advance of the required filing date and be supported by good cause under Fed. R. Civ. P. 

16(b)(4). However, given the parties’ representation that they are working to “ensure the Joint 

Record accurately reflects the history of negotiations between the parties,” and the fact that the 

Case 1:20-cv-01539-KES-SKO Document 36 Filed 02/03/21 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

STIPULATION AND REQUEST FOR EXTENSION 4 Case No.: 1:20-cv-01539-AWI-SKO

requested extension will not affect any other dates in the Scheduling Order, the Court GRANTS 

the parties’ request for an extension.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties are granted an extension of 

time, up to and including February 8, 2021, to file the Joint Record.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 2, 2021 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-01539-KES-SKO Document 36 Filed 02/03/21 Page 4 of 4