Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00821/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00821-27/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Bank of America Corporation
Defendant
Bank of America, N.A.
Defendant
Early Warning Services, LLC
Defendant
First Advantage Background Services Corp.
Defendant
Troy Jacques
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

Attorneys for Plaintiff, TROY JACQUES

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – FRESNO DIVISION

TROY JACQUES,

Plaintiff,

v.

BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, 

a Delaware corporation, aka BANK OF 

AMERICA N.A.; FIRST ADVANTAGE 

BACKGROUND SERVICES CORP., a 

Florida corporation; EARLY WARNING 

SERVICES, LLC, a limited liability 

company, and DOES 1 through 50,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO.: 1:12-cv-00821-SAB

STIPULATION TO CONTINUE 

DATES FOR EXPERT DISCOVERY; 

ORDER

This Stipulation is made by and between counsel for Plaintiff TROY 

JACQUES and sole Defendant BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.

RECITALS

WHEREAS the parties have engaged in expert discovery and conferred 

further in an effort to conclude said discovery and otherwise prepare this matter for trial 

and upon discussion with the above Court have agreed to modify the dates set forth in the 

ORDER RE INFORMAL TELEPHONIC CONFERENCE filed on July 1, 2016; and

/ / /

/ / /

Stephen R. Cornwell, CA Bar #40737

CORNWELL & SAMPLE, LLP

Attorneys at Law

7045 N. Fruit Avenue

Fresno, CA 93711-0761

Telephone: (559) 431-3142

Facsimile: (559) 436-1135

Case 1:12-cv-00821-SAB Document 160 Filed 07/15/16 Page 1 of 3
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

WHEREAS the parties are engaged in expert discovery now and find it in 

their mutual best interests or are otherwise agreeable to modify the dates for various tasks 

to be accomplished and wish to modify those dates to accommodate scheduling.

STIPULATION

NOW, THEREFORE, the parties do hereby stipulate, by and through their 

counsel as follows:

1. The deadline for completing expert discovery was April 29, 2016 and 

pursuant to Stipulation and Court order it was extended to June 2, 2016. 

Pursuant to a second Stipulation and Court order it was extended to July 5, 

2016 and pursuant to a third Stipulation and Court Order it was extended to 

July 15, 2016. The parties now agree to complete expert discovery by 

September 30, 2016.

2. The parties agree that the Pre-Trial Conference remain set on September 22, 

2016, at 10:00 a.m.

3. The parties agree that the Trial remains set on December 6, 2016, at 8:30 

a.m. in Courtroom 9 as a jury trial.

DATED: July 15, 2016. CORNWELL & SAMPLE, LLP

By: /s/ Stephen R. Cornwell

Stephen R. Cornwell

Attorney for Plaintiff

TROY JACQUES

DATED: July 15, 2016 LOCKE LORD, LLP

By: /s/ Alice Kokodis

Alice Kokodis

Attorney for Defendant

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.

Case 1:12-cv-00821-SAB Document 160 Filed 07/15/16 Page 2 of 3
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

ORDER

Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the 

deadline to complete expert discovery is extended to September 30, 2016. The parties are 

advised that the expert cut-off deadlines are the dates by which all discovery must be 

completed. Absent good cause, discovery motions will not be heard after the discovery 

deadlines. In other words, discovery requests and deposition notices must be served 

sufficiently in advance of the discovery deadlines to permit time for a response, time to 

meet and confer, time to prepare, file and hear a motion to compel and time to obtain relief 

on a motion to compel. Compliance with these discovery cutoffs requires motions to 

compel be filed and heard sufficiently in advance of the discovery cutoff so that the Court 

may grant effective relief within the allotted discovery time. A party’s failure to have a 

discovery dispute heard sufficiently in advance of the discovery cutoff may result in denial 

of the motion as untimely. Further, although the expert discovery deadline has been 

extended the parties will be required to raise all expert issues, such as the expert’s 

qualifications, basis for or scope of opinion, etc. in their motions in limine. The Court will 

not find good cause for failure to timely raise an expert issue during trial due to the 

stipulated extension of the expert deadline.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 15, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-00821-SAB Document 160 Filed 07/15/16 Page 3 of 3