Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-03056/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-03056-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
California Foundation for Independent Living Centers
Plaintiff
County of Sacramento
Defendant
Ruthee Goldkorn
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 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

CALIFORNIA FOUNDATION FOR 

INDEPENDENT LIVING CENTERS, and 

RUTHEE GOLDKORN, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:12-CV-03056-KJM-CKD

ORDER 

The plaintiffs filed this lawsuit in December 2012. Compl., ECF No. 1. In 

September 2013, the court issued a status (pretrial scheduling) order. ECF No. 25. Among other 

deadlines, discovery was set to conclude by November 28, 2014, a final pretrial conference was 

set for June 11, 2015, and a jury trial was set for August 2015. See generally id. On several 

occasions over the next three years, the parties requested extensions of these deadlines, which the 

court granted. See Minute Orders, ECF Nos. 29, 31, 33, 36, 62, 65, and 68; Order, Apr. 13, 2016, 

ECF No. 70. Expert discovery is currently set to conclude in late September this year, a final 

pretrial conference is set for November, and a trial is set for January 2017. See Order, Apr. 13, 

2016. 

Case 2:12-cv-03056-KJM-CKD Document 72 Filed 08/16/16 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 

2

On August 4, 2016, the parties filed a stipulation and proposed order requesting an 

additional continuance of all dates for 150 days. ECF No. 71. They write “that there is good cause 

to continue the pre-trial deadlines set forth in the Court’s scheduling because the parties’ efforts at 

settlement and crafting a remedial plan could resolve all matters in this action, thereby, obviating 

the need for further litigation and sparing the parties further time and expense preparing for trial.” 

Id. at 1–2. Similarly broad language accompanied several of the parties’ previous requests. See, 

e.g., Stips. & Proposed Orders, ECF Nos. 67, 69. 

The request to continue dates and deadlines is denied in light of this case’s 

delayed schedule. In light of these delays, the court cannot continue to accept terse explanations 

of settlement and remediation efforts. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: August 16, 2016 

Case 2:12-cv-03056-KJM-CKD Document 72 Filed 08/16/16 Page 2 of 2