Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-03830/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-03830-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 320
Nature of Suit: Assault, Libel, and Slander
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

JONA TRBOVICH, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-03830-BLF 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

CHANGE TRIAL

[Re: ECF 33]

Before the Court is Defendant Michael Morin’s Motion to Change Trial and Other 

Scheduled Dates. ECF 33. Morin proposed October 31, 2016 as an alternative date. Id. The other 

defendants in this case, County of Santa Clara and Douglas Ulrich (“County Defendants”), joined 

in the Motion, ECF 36, and Plaintiffs opposed, ECF 37. On January 21, 2016, the Court heard oral 

argument on the Motion. For the reasons stated on the record and below, Defendants’ Motion to 

Change Trial Date and Other Scheduled Dates is GRANTED.

Defendants have demonstrated good cause for continuing the trial and Plaintiffs have failed 

to establish prejudice. Counsel for Morin was substituted in on November 13, 2015 and learned 

shortly thereafter that Plaintiffs had unilaterally set dates for fourteen depositions, all in December 

and none of which were available on his calendar. Id. at 4-5. In addition, depositions of Plaintiffs 

have not yet been completed. Id. at 5. Though Plaintiffs argue that continuing the trial date would 

“create[] substantial prejudice to both Plaintiffs,” one of whom is working minimum wage jobs to 

make end meets while she awaits the trial, Plaintiffs additionally note that they have yet to receive 

the document discovery they need for trial, much less complete any depositions. Opp. at 3. Thus, 

the Court finds that a continuance would not result in prejudice to the Plaintiffs. See Fed. Rule 

Civ. Pro. 16(b)(4).

Case 5:14-cv-03830-BLF Document 45 Filed 01/21/16 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Accordingly, the Court CONTINUES the trial and other scheduled dates as follows:

EVENT DATE OR DEADLINE

Last Day to Hear Dispositive Motions 07/28/2016 at 9:00 am

Final Pretrial Conference 10/13/2016 at 1:30 pm

Trial 10/31/2016 at 9:00 am

County Defendants also ask the Court to appoint a special master to resolve a number of 

discovery disputes. See County Defendants’ Reply at 13. The disputes themselves are not before 

the Court on this Motion. At the hearing, the parties agreed to meet and confer regarding the 

employment of, method for selecting, and plan for funding a special master, as well as a revised 

schedule regarding discovery to trial. The Court ORDERS the parties to provide a brief, joint 

statement of no more than 5 pages advising the Court of the results of this meet and confer by no 

later than February 4, 2016. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 21, 2016

 ______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:14-cv-03830-BLF Document 45 Filed 01/21/16 Page 2 of 2