Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06408/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06408-18/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KATHRYN HOGAN, et al., CASE NO. CV-F-03-6408 LJO WMW

 

Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

CONTINUE PRE-TRIAL AND TRIAL

DATES AND CLARIFYING ORDER

vs.

FRESNO COUNTY SHERIFF’S

DEPUTY MICHAEL ROBINSON,

et al.,

Defendants.

 / 

On April 12, 2007, the parties requested a telephonic status conference to address pending dates.

The request was granted. The parties filed and served their respective statements on April 13, 2007,

and a telephonic conference was held at 2 p.m. Plaintiffs Kathryn Hogan and Charlotte-Marie Hogan

appeared by attorney Kevin Little. Defendant Patricia Towne appeared by attorney Jerry D. Casheros.

Defendants Michael Robinson and Country of Fresno appeared by James D. Weakley and Michael R.

Linden.

Plaintiffs moved to extend the discovery cut-off dates, motion filing dates, pretrial dates and to

continue the trial date, currently set for July 23, 2007. Defendants Michael Robinson and County of

Fresno did not oppose extending the discovery cut-off dates, but opposed continuing the trial date.

Defendant Patricia Towne opposed any extension in this 3 1⁄2 -year-old action. 

On the record, the Court indicated an inclination to grant the request to extend the discovery

dates but not to extend the trial date, indicating the concern that the case is quite old and reminding

Case 1:03-cv-06408-LJO-GSA Document 156 Filed 04/17/07 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

counsel that all agreed to the currently set date for trial. Plaintiffs’ counsel indicated, on the record, that

the discovery extensions would do no good unless the trial date extension was granted. Having

considered the parties statements as well as the arguments of counsel, and for the reasons stated on the

record, which are incorporated herein, Plaintiffs’ motion is DENIED. Accordingly, all dates currently

set will remain intact.

After the Court’s ruling, on April 16, 2007, Defendants jointly filed a Request for Clarification

of the April 13, 2007 Order Denying Plaintiffs’ Motion to Continue Trial and Discovery Cut-Off Dates.

Plaintiffs responded with an Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Clarification. The Court makes the

following points of clarification:

1. The Court only ruled on what was before it. The motions to continue expressly

addressed by the parties in their submitted letters of April 13, 2007 were denied. The

Court did not expand the motions with its ruling.

2. The parties did not present the issue of the deposition of Marveline Breech at the April

13, 2007 hearing. Accordingly, this Court’s ruling does not disturb any order issued by

Magistrate Judge Wunderlich regarding the deposition of Marveline Breech. Any new

or unsettled questions relating to that deposition should be submitted to Judge

Wunderlich. 

4 This order does not affect the six additional hours of deposition testimony of Kathryn

Hogan that was allowed in this Court’s Order of January 12, 2007 and reaffirmed on

March 19, 2007. 

5. With the exceptions of the deposition testimonies specifically ruled on by order of this

Court on January, 12, 2007 and by Judge Wunderlich on March 08, 2007, the discovery

cut-off dates are in effect. Counsel should no longer conduct discovery absent a new

Court order. 

6. The circumstances outlined by counsel in the clarification request are the risks that any

counsel takes when they attempt to amend a scheduling conference order without the

Case 1:03-cv-06408-LJO-GSA Document 156 Filed 04/17/07 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

Counsel are reminded that under Local Rule 83-143, stipulations are not effective unless 1

approved by the Court. 

3

Court’s involvement or consent. The numerous and conflicting representations 1

regarding agreements and stipulations go to the heart of the problem. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 17, 2007 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06408-LJO-GSA Document 156 Filed 04/17/07 Page 3 of 3