Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00286/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00286-8/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAYMUNDO VICENTE RUBIO,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CITY OF VISALIA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:21-cv-00286-SAB

ORDER REQUIRING DEFENDANTS TO 

FILE A RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S EX 

PARTE REQUEST TO MODIFY THE 

SCHEDULING ORDER

(ECF No. 57)

SEVEN DAY DEADLINE

On October 31, 2023, Plaintiff filed an ex parte application to modify the scheduling 

order to extend the deadlines for (1) non-expert discovery; (2) expert disclosure; and (3) 

supplemental expert disclosure. (ECF No. 57.) An initial scheduling order was issued in this 

action on September 10, 2021, and was modified on April 6, 2022, and again on June 6, 2023. 

(ECF Nos. 24, 37, 55.) Pursuant to the Court’s June 6, 2023 order modifying the scheduling 

order, the nonexpert discovery deadline is currently set for November 3, 2023; expert disclosure 

is currently set for November 6, 2023; and supplemental expert disclosure is currently set for 

December 4, 2023. (ECF No. 55.) Plaintiff requests an extension of the nonexpert discovery 

deadline to December 1, 2023; expert disclosure to December 6, 2023; and supplemental expert 

disclosure to December 20, 2023 in order to take the depositions of the two named defendants 

and subsequently designate experts. (ECF No. 57 at 1-2.) In short, Plaintiff is requesting an 

extension due to oversight on the part of Plaintiff’s counsel and staffing changes. (Id. at 3-4.) 

Case 1:21-cv-00286-SAB Document 58 Filed 10/31/23 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

2

Plaintiff does not request an extension of any other deadline in the instant ex parte application. 

In the instant application, Plaintiff’s counsel represents he notified Defendants’ counsel 

on October 30, 2023 that Plaintiff would seek ex parte relief. (ECF No. 57 at 3.) Plaintiff 

proffers Defendants’ counsel requested a copy of Plaintiff’s ex parte application on October 31, 

2023. (Id.) However, Plaintiff proffers “[i]t is unknown if Defendants will oppose Plaintiff’s ex 

parte application.” (Id.) The Court shall therefore require Defendants to file an opposition or 

non-opposition to Plaintiff’s ex parte application to modify the scheduling order regarding 

discovery and expert deadlines within seven (7) days. If Defendant requires additional time or 

would prefer this matter be set for hearing, Defendant may indicate in the filing. Alternatively, 

the parties may submit a stipulation within seven (7) days. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Within seven (7) days of entry of this order, Defendants shall file an opposition to 

Plaintiff’s ex parte application;

2. If Defendants file an opposition, Plaintiff may file a reply within three (3) days

of service of the opposition; and

3. The parties may alternatively stipulate to a modification, or request a hearing be 

held on the application. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 31, 2023 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:21-cv-00286-SAB Document 58 Filed 10/31/23 Page 2 of 2