Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-00348/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-00348-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 448
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights - Education
Cause of Action: 20:1400 Civil Rights of Handicapped Child

---

1

STIPULATION & ORDER (Case No. 2:19-cv-00348-MCE-DMC)

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

Jay T. Jambeck (SBN # 226018)

jjambeck@leighlawgroup.com

Mandy G. Leigh (SBN # 225748)

mleigh@leighlawgroup.com

Damien B. Troutman (SBN # 286616)

dtroutman@leighlawgroup.com

LEIGH LAW GROUP, P.C.

870 Market St., Suite 1157

San Francisco, CA 94102

Office: (415) 399-9155

Fax: (415) 795-3733

Attorneys for Plaintiff

C.G. (a minor), by and through his Parents and Guardians ad Litem, 

DONALD and WENDY GRAHAM

Patrick L. Deedon, State Bar No. 245490

John R. Powell, State Bar No. 320187

MAIRE & DEEDON

2851 Park Marina Dr., #300

Post Office Drawer 994607

Redding, California 96099-4607

(530) 246-6050 I 246-6060 (fax)

pdeedon@maire-law.com

jpowell@maire-law.com

Attorneys for Defendant

REDDING CHRISTIAN SCHOOL

IN THE UNITIED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

C.G. (a minor), by and through his Parents 

and Guardians ad Litem, DONALD and 

WENDY GRAHAM,

Plaintiff,

v.

REDDING CHRISTIAN SCHOOL, and 

DOES 1-30, inclusive, 

 Defendant.

Case No.: 2:19-cv-00348-MCE-DMC

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND 

DISCOVERY DEADLINES

Discovery Deadline: February 27, 2020

Trial Date: Not yet set

Case 2:19-cv-00348-MCE-DMC Document 26 Filed 02/21/20 Page 1 of 3
2

STIPULATION & ORDER (Case No. 2:19-cv-00348-MCE-DMC)

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

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 and this Court’s Local Rules 143-44, Plaintiff C.G.

(“Plaintiff”) and Defendant REDDING CHRISTIAN SCHOOL (“Defendant”), by and through 

their undersigned attorneys of record, hereby agree and stipulate as follows:

1. On February 27, 2019, the Court ordered the completion of all non-expert discovery by 

Thursday, February 27, 2020. (See Dkt. # 4, 2:17-18). 

2. In addition to written discovery, the parties have diligently taken discovery in this matter, 

including completing the depositions of Plaintiff and his parents on January 8, 2020. The parties 

mutually agree that additional discovery, including depositions taken by Plaintiff’s counsel of 

Defendants’ decision-maker(s), are necessary before the non-expert discovery deadline to assess 

the possibility of informal resolution, and to determine whether summary judgment motion 

practice will be necessary. To facilitate the informal resolution talks and minimize any need to 

utilize judicial resources, Plaintiff counsel granted Defendant an extension until February 11, 

2020 to respond to written discovery requests served by Plaintiff’s counsel on December 24, 

2019.

3. Accordingly, the parties stipulate and request amendment of the above-mentioned nonexpert discovery deadline to March 31, 2020.

4. The parties agree that “good cause” exists for the requested amendment. See Schaffner v. 

Crown Equipment Corporation, 2011 WL 6303408, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2011) (citing

Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992) (stating that “good 

cause” exists when a deadline “cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party 

seeking the extension.”); Hood v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co., 567 F.Supp.2d 1221, 1224 

(E.D. Cal. 2008) (providing that good cause is established by showing (1) diligence in assisting 

Case 2:19-cv-00348-MCE-DMC Document 26 Filed 02/21/20 Page 2 of 3
3

STIPULATION & ORDER (Case No. 2:19-cv-00348-MCE-DMC)

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

the creation of a workable Rule 16 order; (2) noncompliance with a Rule 16 deadline occurred 

or will occur, notwithstanding the parties’ diligence 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) diligence in seeking amendment of the Rule 16 order, once it 

became apparent that the parties could not comply with the order).

5. The parties do not discern any prejudice to themselves or the Court by these requested 

extensions, as no trial date has been set. (See e.g., Dkt. # 4, 5:16-6:16).

6. Neither party has previously requested amendment of the scheduling order in this matter.

ACCORDINGLY, THE PARTIES STIPULATE AND RESPECTFULLY REQUEST 

AMENDMENT OF THE SCHEDULING ORDER AS FOLLOWS:

a. Non-expert discovery cutoff: March 31, 2020

IT IS SO STIPULATED THROUGH COUNSEL:

Date: February 14, 2020 LEIGH LAW GROUP, P.C.

/s/ Damien B. Troutman

DAMIEN B. TROUTMAN

Attorney for Plaintiff C.G.

Date: February 14, 2020 MAIRE & DEEDON

/s/ John R. Powell

PATRICK L. DEEDON

JOHN R. POWELL

Attorney for Defendant

REDDING CHRISTIAN SCHOOL

In accordance with the foregoing stipulation, IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 20, 2020

Case 2:19-cv-00348-MCE-DMC Document 26 Filed 02/21/20 Page 3 of 3