Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01094/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01094-3/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – FRESNO DIVISION

PEREZ, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:10-cv-01094-AWI-SKO

ORDER GRANTING IN PART

STIPULATED REQUEST FOR

CONTINUANCE OF SCHEDULING

CONFERENCE

(Docket No. 11)

Plaintiffs filed this case on June 16, 2010. On June 17, 2010, the Court set an Initial

Scheduling Conference for August 24, 2010. On August 10, 2010, the parties filed a stipulated

request for a continuance of the Scheduling Conference citing voluminous documents that neither

party had a chance to review. (Doc. 4.) This request was granted on August 12, 2010, and the

Scheduling Conference was reset to November 23, 2010. 

On November 19, 2010, the parties filed another stipulated request for a continuance of the

Scheduling Conference for the same reason. (Doc. 8.) The Court granted the request, but stated that

unless truly good cause was set forth supported by declarations and affidavits, no further request for

a continuance would be entertained. (Doc. 9.) The SchedulingConference was then reset to January

13, 2010. 

On January 4, 2011, the parties filed another request to continue the SchedulingConference 

asserting that video footage relevant to the claims was still under review by counsel. (Doc. 11.)

Case 1:10-cv-01094-AWI-SKO Document 12 Filed 01/05/11 Page 1 of 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

Counsel for Plaintiffs asserts that he needs another 30 days to determine whether the facts support

proceeding forward with the case and to develop a meaningful discovery plan. Counsel for both

parties believe that they would be unable to have a discovery plan prepared for the Scheduling

Conference, and thus, request a continuance. (Doc. 11.) 

While the Court finds that good cause exists to support a continuance, only a two-week

extension is warranted. This matter has been pending for more than six months. Much of the

evidence the parties wish to review can be accomplished during discovery. Delaying the scheduling

conference for several months has apparently not helped expedite the process. The Scheduling

Conference will provide the parties an opportunity to discuss with the Court ways to craft a workable

schedule, allowing the parties and counsel the time they need to assess their respective cases.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. The parties' stipulated request for a continuance of the Scheduling Conference is

GRANTED IN PART; and

2. The Scheduling Conference is RESET for February 1, 2011, at 9:15 a.m.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 5, 2011 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

ie14hj UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 1:10-cv-01094-AWI-SKO Document 12 Filed 01/05/11 Page 2 of 2