Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00538/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00538-3/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

Stipulation and Proposed Order to Modify the Scheduling Order to Extend Deadlines By Sixty Days and to Continue 

the Trial (2:13-cv-00538 MCE KJN)

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 Robles and Rodriguez

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SACRAMENTO DIVISION 

MIKKOS GOODMAN, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN, et al., 

Defendants.

No. 2:13-cv-00538 MCE-KJN 

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO 

MODIFY THE SCHEDULING ORDER 

TO EXTEND DEADLINES BY SIXTY 

DAYS AND TO CONTINUE THE TRIAL 

Trial Date: September 14, 2015 

Action Filed: March 18, 2013 

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

their counsel of record, agree to and request a sixty-day extension of the scheduling deadlines and 

a continuance of the trial to a date after December 2015. Good cause exists to grant this 

stipulation because the parties require more time to complete discovery and Defendant Rodriguez 

has a conflict with the current trial date. 

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 

Case 2:13-cv-00538-MCE-KJN Document 28 Filed 11/18/14 Page 1 of 5
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

Stipulation and Proposed Order to Modify the Scheduling Order to Extend Deadlines By Sixty Days and to Continue 

the Trial (2:13-cv-00538 MCE KJN)

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 April 10, 2014, the Court issued a Scheduling Order (ECF No. 18) setting the following 

deadlines: 

Fact Discovery November 14, 2014 

Expert Disclosures January 14, 2015 

Last Day to Hear Dispositive Motions May 14, 2015 

Settlement Conference May 21, 2015 at 10 a.m. 

Joint Final Pretrial Conference Statement July 2, 2015 

Motions in Limine July 2, 2015 

Trial Briefs July 9, 2015 

Opposition to Motions in Limine July 9, 2015 

Reply to Opposition to Motions in Lmine: July 16, 2015 

Final Pretrial Conference July 23, 2015 at 2 p.m. 

Trial September 14, 2015 at 9 a.m. 

The parties request a sixty-day extension of all the pretrial deadlines because they require 

more time to complete fact discovery, which will in turn affect the remaining deadlines. The 

parties have exchanged and responded to written discovery. Plaintiff’s deposition was completed 

on November 5, 2014, and the depositions of Sandra Davis and Niesha Barrell, pertinent 

witnesses Plaintiff identified, were completed on November 10. However, the depositions of the 

Defendants have not been taken due to several factors beyond counsel’s control. 

Plaintiff Mikkos Goodman was arrested in July 2014, and has been incarcerated at Santa 

Rita Jail in Dublin, California. He is being held without bail, pending attempted-murder-related 

charges. Because of Plaintiff’s incarceration, his attorneys were unable to make him available for 

deposition until recently. Plaintiff’s counsel have also experienced difficulty meeting with their 

client to discuss other case- and discovery-related matters with him. The parties obtained an 

Case 2:13-cv-00538-MCE-KJN Document 28 Filed 11/18/14 Page 2 of 5
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 

3

Stipulation and Proposed Order to Modify the Scheduling Order to Extend Deadlines By Sixty Days and to Continue 

the Trial (2:13-cv-00538 MCE KJN)

order from the Magistrate Judge that resulted in their ability to take Plaintiff’s deposition at the 

county jail on November 5, 2014. (See ECF No. 25.) 

The parties did not take Plaintiff’s deposition sooner because, in addition to his 

incarceration, his attorney, Ben Nisenbaum, was in trial during the entire month of September 

into early October. Mr. Nisenbaum spent the majority of the summer preparing for trial. Mr. 

Nisenbaum’s trial also prevented him from taking the Defendants’ depositions. 

The parties have tentatively scheduled the depositions of Robles and Rodriguez for 

December 5. Counsel are meeting and conferring concerning the scheduling of the depositions of 

the County of San Joaquin Defendants. 

The parties also request a continuance of trial because Defendant Rodriguez, who is one of 

the primary defendants, is not available for trial in September 2015. Rodriguez is scheduled to be 

on vacation during the current trial date. He purchased the family out-of-state vacation almost a 

year before the Court issued its Scheduling Order in April 2014. Rodriguez has already paid for 

the vacation and cannot reschedule it without incurring substantial expense. Several months ago, 

Rodriguez’s attorney informed all counsel of the conflict. The parties did not seek modification 

of the Scheduling Order at that time because they believed it more prudent to wait and see if any 

other scheduling deadline needed to be modified and make a single request to the Court. Due to 

trials Plaintiff’s counsel and the attorneys for the County of Joaquin Defendants already have in 

late 2015, the parties request that the trial be continued to a date after December 2015 based on 

the Court’s calendar. 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

Case 2:13-cv-00538-MCE-KJN Document 28 Filed 11/18/14 Page 3 of 5
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 

4

Stipulation and Proposed Order to Modify the Scheduling Order to Extend Deadlines By Sixty Days and to Continue 

the Trial (2:13-cv-00538 MCE KJN)

IT IS SO STIPULATED. 

Dated: November 12, 2014 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 Robles and 

Rodriguez

Dated: November 12, 2014 MAYALL, HURLEY, P.C. 

/s/ Mark E. Berry 

MARK E. BERRY

DERICK E. KONZ

Attorneys for Defendants County of San 

Joaquin, Adam Grubb, and Robert Clearly

Dated: November 12, 2014 LAW OFFICES OF JOHN L. BURRIS

/s/ Benjamin Nisenbaum 

JOHN L. BURRIS

BENJAMIN NISENBAUM

Attorneys for Plaintiff Mikkos Goodman

Case 2:13-cv-00538-MCE-KJN Document 28 Filed 11/18/14 Page 4 of 5
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 

 5

Stipulation and Proposed Order to Modify the Scheduling Order to Extend Deadlines By Sixty Days and to Continue 

the Trial (2:13-cv-00538 MCE KJN)

ORDER 

Good cause appearing, the parties’ stipulated request for a continuance of the pretrial 

deadlines and trial is GRANTED. The operative Pretrial Scheduling Order and all dates already 

set in this case are VACATED, and an Amended Pretrial Scheduling Order will be issued. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: November 18, 2014 

Case 2:13-cv-00538-MCE-KJN Document 28 Filed 11/18/14 Page 5 of 5