Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-02793/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-02793-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1983 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

1

STIPULATION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY CUT-OFF DATES AND ORDER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SHAFAK PERVEZ, an individual,

Plaintiff,

v.

XAVIER BACERRA, in his official 

capacity, BRENT E. ORICK, in his official 

capacity, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT 

OF JUSTICE, COUNTY OF 

SACRAMENTO

Defendants.

Case No.: 2:18-cv-002793-KJM-KJN

STIPULATION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY 

CUT-OFF DATES AND ORDER

INTRODUCTION

The parties, Plaintiff Shafak Pervez (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant County of Sacramento 

(“Defendant”), through their respective attorneys of record, hereby jointly stipulate to an

extension of the currently scheduled discovery deadlines as set forth below.

RECITAL/GROUNDS FOR RELIEF

Pursuant to Rule 16, a party may seek modification of a scheduling order, including 

modification of a discovery cut-off date, “only for good cause and with a judge’s consent.” Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). Rule 16(b)’s good cause inquiry focuses primarily on the movant’s diligence. 

Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 1294 (9th Cir. 2000). However, the court has 

“broad discretion in supervising the pretrial phase of litigation.” Zivkovic v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 

Case 2:18-cv-02793-KJM-KJN Document 40 Filed 03/10/20 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

2

STIPULATION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY CUT-OFF DATES AND ORDER

302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002). A party may establish good cause by showing: (1) the [the 

parties were] diligent in assisting the court in creating a workable Rule 16 order; (2) that [the 

parties’] noncompliance with a Rule 16 deadline occurred or will occur, notwithstanding [their] 

diligent efforts to comply, because of the development of matters which could not have been 

reasonably foreseen or anticipated at the time of the Rule 16 scheduling conference; and (3) that 

[they were] diligent in seeking amendment of the Rule 16 order, once it because apparent that 

[they] could not comply with the order. Hood v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co., 567 

F.Supp.2d 1221, 1224 (E.D. Cal. 2008) (citations omitted). 

The current deadline to complete all non-expert discovery is March 9, 2020.

The parties stipulate and have agreed to extend the non-expert discovery deadline as 

follows:

(1) Defendant provided supplemental initial disclosures on February 13, 2020, February 21, 

2020, and March 2, 2020 due to the recent discovery of more witnesses relating to 

Plaintiff’s factual allegations and legal claims in this action. These additional witnesses 

include Andrea Konstad, Lloyd Benjamin, M.D., John Luo, MD, David Boggs, Jerry 

Wong, Natalie Stamper, Psy.D., Betty Gamez, and possibly Sacramento County Superior 

Court personnel related to superior court records ordered disclosed by Magistrate Judge 

Newman on February 13, 2020.

(2) All witnesses will need to be deposed. However, scheduling conflicts prevent Plaintiff’s 

ability to depose them before March 9, 2020.

(3) Defendant’s witness Julie Setzer has been out on medical leave for at least six months and 

is still out on medical leave preventing her from attending her deposition originally 

scheduled March 6, 2020.

(4) Defendant timely noticed the deposition of Gretchen Fehm Blake LCSW, however, the 

notice conflicted with a mandatory settle conference which Plaintiff’s counsel had to be in 

attendance. 

(5) Plaintiff timely noticed the deposition of the persons most knowledgeable regarding 

Case 2:18-cv-02793-KJM-KJN Document 40 Filed 03/10/20 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

3

STIPULATION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY CUT-OFF DATES AND ORDER

certain topics, however, the recent amended initial disclosures has necessitated deposing 

these witnesses prior to the noticing the PMK deposition(s). 

(6) Modifying the non-expert discovery deadline pursuant to this stipulation will allow the

parties an opportunity to collaborate informally to complete the discovery process without 

further involvement of the court. 

(7) The parties make this request to modify the discovery cut-off date after ultimately 

concluding that avoiding this request is not feasible. 

ACCORDINGLY, THE PARTIES STIPULATE AND AGREE TO THE FOLLOWING:

1. To extend the non-expert discovery cut-off deadline 45 days, to April 23, 2020 for 

depositions of the above-named witnesses.

2. To extend the non-expert discovery cut-off deadline 60 days, to May 8, 2020 to depose

Julie Setzer.

SO STIPULATED.

Dated: March 5, 2020 LAW OFFICE OF KELLAN PATTERSON

/s/ Kellan S. Patterson

Kellan Patterson

Attorney for SHAFAK PERVEZ

Dated: March 5, 2020 RIVERA HEWITT PAUL LLP

/s/ Shanan L. Hewitt

Shanan Hewitt

Attorney for COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

Case 2:18-cv-02793-KJM-KJN Document 40 Filed 03/10/20 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

4

STIPULATION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY CUT-OFF DATES AND ORDER

ORDER

The Court does find good cause to modify and extend non-expert discovery in light of the

recitals stipulated above and so orders that request to extend the non-expert discovery deadline is 

granted as follows:

1. The non-expert discovery cut-off deadline is hereby extended by 45 days, to April 23, 

2020, for depositions of the above-named witnesses to be conducted; and

2. The non-expert discovery cut-off deadline is hereby extended by 60 days, to May 8, 2020, 

for the deposition of Julie Setzer to be conducted.

IT IS SO ORDERED

Dated: March 10, 2020

Case 2:18-cv-02793-KJM-KJN Document 40 Filed 03/10/20 Page 4 of 4