Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-00455/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-00455-20/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 for Three-Day Extension of Prop. 36 and 47 Motions (2:08-cv-00455 GEB-EFB)

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 Cahoon, Holliday, 

Nuehring, and Sisto

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SACRAMENTO DIVISION

SHERIE LEMIRE,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS AND 

REHABILITATION,

Defendants.

No. 2:08-cv-00455 GEB-EFB

STIPULATION AND PROPOSED 

ORDER FOR THREE-DAY EXTENSION 

OF DEADLINE TO FILE MOTIONS RE 

PROPOSITIONS 36 AND 47

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 three-day extension of the deadline to file their 

motions concerning Propositions 36 and 47 that are currently due on January 5, 2015, based on 

the Pretrial Order dated December 10, 2014. (See ECF No. 154, 7:12-9:2.) Good cause exists to 

grant this stipulation because defense counsel is preparing for trial that is scheduled to start on 

January 6, and the parties require more time to work out a stipulation of pertinent facts that will 

aid the Court in its determination concerning the applicability of Propositions 36 and 47. 

Case 2:08-cv-00455-GEB-EFB Document 156 Filed 01/08/15 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 for Three-Day Extension of Prop. 36 and 47 Motions (2:08-cv-00455 GEB-EFB)

The court may modify a final pretrial order to prevent manifest injustice. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

16(e). 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 

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). 

Defense counsel is scheduled to start trial in the matter of Sutherland v. Yates (E.D. Cal. 

No. 1:09-cv-2152 SAB) on January 6, 2015, before Magistrate Judge Boone, in the Fresno 

Division of this Court. Defense counsel spent the majority of December preparing the necessary 

trial documents and is currently undergoing final preparations for trial. Although defense counsel 

has started working on the motion due in this case, she will be unable to complete Defendants‟ 

motion by the current deadline. 

Also, due to the holidays, the parties were unable to finalize a list of stipulated facts 

concerning Robert St. Jovite‟s criminal convictions. The parties believe that a set of stipulated 

facts will assist and facilitate in the Court‟s determination concerning the applicability and impact 

of Propositions 36 and 47 on St. Jovite had he survived, including that date on which he would 

have been released from prison. Counsel for the parties continue to confer and expect to reach an 

agreement on many pertinent facts related to the motions. For these reasons, the parties request a 

three-day extension, up to and including January 8, 2015, of the deadline to file their respective 

motions. 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:08-cv-00455-GEB-EFB Document 156 Filed 01/08/15 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 for Three-Day Extension of Prop. 36 and 47 Motions (2:08-cv-00455 GEB-EFB)

IT IS SO STIPULATED. 

Dated: January 5, 2015 Respectfully submitted,

LAW OFFICES OF GREEN & GREEN, LLP

/s/ Geri Lynn Green

GERI LYNN GREEN

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Dated: January 5, 2015

SA2008302509

11664122.doc

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 

Case 2:08-cv-00455-GEB-EFB Document 156 Filed 01/08/15 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 for Three-Day Extension of Prop. 36 and 47 Motions (2:08-cv-00455 GEB-EFB)

ORDER

The parties‟ stipulated request for a three-day extension of deadline to file their motions 

concerning Propositions 36 and 47 is granted. 

The parties‟ motions concerning their respective positions on Propositions 36 and 47 shall 

be filed by no later than January 8, 2015. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 7, 2015

Case 2:08-cv-00455-GEB-EFB Document 156 Filed 01/08/15 Page 4 of 4