Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02403/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02403-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil 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

KAMALA D. HARRIS, State Bar No. 146672

Attorney General of California

CHRISTOPHER J. BECKER, State Bar No. 230529

Supervising Deputy Attorney General

DIANA ESQUIVEL, State Bar No. 202954

Deputy Attorney General

1300 I Street, Suite 125

P.O. Box 944255

Sacramento, CA 94244-2550

Telephone: (916) 445-4928

Facsimile: (916) 324-5205

E-mail: Diana.Esquivel@doj.ca.gov

Attorneys for Defendants California Department of 

Corrections and Rehabilitation, Allen, Anger, Duffy, 

and Perehoduk

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SACRAMENTO DIVISION

WILLIAM BARKER,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS AND 

REHABILITATION, et al. ,

Defendants.

No. 2:14-cv-02403 CKD

STIPULATION AND PROPOSED 

ORDER TO VACATE SCHEDULING 

ORDER

Action Filed: October 13, 2014

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) and Local Rule 143, the parties, through 

their attorneys of record, agree to and request that the Court vacate the March 9, 2016 Order 

setting a July 18, 2016 deadline to file dispositive motions. (ECF No. 24.) Good cause exists to 

grant this stipulation because the parties are scheduled for a settlement conference with 

Magistrate Judge Newman on November 9, 2016, and vacating the pretrial motion deadline will 

conserve resources and allow the parties to engage in more meaningful settlement discussions. 

Case 2:14-cv-02403-CKD Document 29 Filed 07/14/16 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

A scheduling order may be modified only upon a showing of good cause and by leave of 

Court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A), 16(b)(4); see, e.g., Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 

F.2d 604, 609 (describing the factors a court should consider in ruling on such a motion). In 

considering whether a party moving for a schedule modification has good cause, the Court 

primarily focuses on the diligence of the party seeking the modification. Johnson, 975 F.2d at 

609 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 advisory committee’s notes of 1983 amendment). “The district 

court may modify the pretrial schedule ‘if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the 

party seeking the amendment.’” Id. (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 advisory committee notes of 1983 

amendment). 

On November 19, 2015, the Court issued a Scheduling Order in this matter. (ECF No. 21.) 

On March 8, 2016, the parties submitted a stipulation requesting that the scheduling deadlines be 

continued by thirty days to allow the parties to complete discovery. (ECF No. 23.) The Court 

granted the parties’ stipulated request and set an April 25, 2016 discovery deadline and a July 18, 

2016 deadline to file dispositive motion. (ECF No. 24.) 

The parties have timely and diligently completed discovery. Since the completion of 

discovery, the parties have agreed to pursue settlement discussions in this case and Barker v. 

CDCR (E.D. Cal. No. 2:13-cv-01793-KJN). The Court has already both these matters for a 

settlement conference on November 9 with Magistrate Judge Newman. Both parties are 

contemplating filing summary-judgment motions. The parties may be less inclined to settle or 

enter into serious settlement discussions if a dispositive motion is pending that may dispose of the 

case or some of the claims. To avoid incurring the expense of preparing dispositive motions, that

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:14-cv-02403-CKD Document 29 Filed 07/14/16 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

may become moot if the parties settle, the parties request that the Court vacate the current 

pretrial-motion deadline, and set a new deadline if the parties are unable to reach an agreement on 

November 9, 2016. 

IT IS SO STIPULATED. 

Dated: July 12, 2016 Respectfully submitted,

KAMALA D. HARRIS

Attorney General of California

CHRISTOPHER J. BECKER

Supervising Deputy Attorney General

/s/ Diana Esquivel

DIANA ESQUIVEL

Deputy Attorney General

Attorneys for Defendants

Dated: July 12, 2016 DISABLED ADVOCACY GROUP, APLC

/s/ Stephanie L. Ross

SCOTTLYNN J. HUBBARD, IV

STEPHANIE L. ROSS

Attorneys for Plaintiff

SA2015302309

12342231.doc

Case 2:14-cv-02403-CKD Document 29 Filed 07/14/16 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

ORDER

Good cause appearing, the parties’ stipulated request to vacate the March 9, 2016 

Scheduling Order (ECF No. 24) is GRANTED. 

The July 18, 2016 pretrial-motion deadline is vacated. The Court will set a new deadline 

after November 9, 2016, if necessary. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: July 14, 2016

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:14-cv-02403-CKD Document 29 Filed 07/14/16 Page 4 of 4