Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01141/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01141-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Richard Schediwy
Defendant
Laura Strauss
Defendant
Tri-Dam
Plaintiff

Document Text:

THE LAW OFFICES OF

KATHLEEN P. CLACK

6061 N. FRESNO STREET

SUITE 101

FRESNO, CA 93710

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

Kathleen Clack 196405

ATTORNEY AT LAW

6061 North Fresno Street, Suite 101

Fresno, California 93710

Telephone: 559.241.7229

Attorney for Defendants RICHARD SCHEDIWY 

and LAURA STRAUSS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TRI-DAM,

Plaintiff,

vs.

 

RICHARD SCHEDIWY and LAURA

STRAUSS.

Defendants.

_________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

NO.: 1:11-CV-01141-AWI-SMS

STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING

CONTINUANCE OF DISCOVERY

SCHEDULING ORDER DEADLINES DUE

TO SCHEDULING CONFLICT

The parties to this matter, by and through their undersigned counsel, stipulate to the

following joint request to the Court that it continue the Scheduling Order deadline as set forth in

the proposed schedule below.

I. RECITALS

This action commenced on July 2011. On September 9, 2011, plaintiff Tri-Dam

(“Plaintiff”) filed the First Amended complaint. The First Amended complaint seeks a

permanent injunction against defendants Richard Schediwy and Laura Strauss (“Defendants”)

related to construction of a retaining wall in Calaveras County.

The Court issued its Scheduling Order on February 29, 2012.The current deadline for

non-expert discovery is February 8, 2013. The filing deadline for non-dispositive motions is

STIPULATION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY DEADLINES

1

Case 1:11-cv-01141-AWI-SMS Document 45 Filed 01/17/13 Page 1 of 5
THE LAW OFFICES OF

KATHLEEN P. CLACK

6061 N. FRESNO STREET

SUITE 101

FRESNO, CA 93710

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

February 15, 2013.

Plaintiff noticed the depositions of both Defendants, on January 24, 2013. Defendants

have scheduled two depositions of Plaintiff principles for January 29 and 30, 2013, having tried

to schedule same for January 23 and 24. These dates did not work for Plaintiff. The parties also

intend to take several third-party depositions.

Defense counsel, Kathleen P. Clack, has a conflict at the end of January making it

extremely difficult if not impossible to meet the discovery deadline for depositions. Ms. Clack is

associate counsel in a State of California case in Madera County, MCV050582, trial date January

28, 2013. Lead counsel, David C. Anderson, requires Ms. Clack’s assistance at trial. 

It was not expected to have to assist at trial because settlements had been going well and

lead counsel had not been compelled to ask for assistance until now when settlement negotiations

were unsuccessful so close to trial with a substantial number of parties still involved in the State

action. Three of the nine defendants are refusing to settle, as well as the Plaintiff. Mr. Anderson

and Ms. Clack represent the Defendant/Cross-Complainant, TINA J. DHILLON, M.D. dba

MADERA WOMEN’S HEALTH. 

The reason that Ms. Clack’s participation is essential is first, Mr. Anderson requires

assistance of associate counsel, and because Ms. Clack was lead counsel for 2 years until her

client's funds became depleted and turned the case over to a contingency attorney who could fund

the completion of the case, which he has done for the past 14 months. However, Ms. Clack has

the most historic fact knowledge of the case, for which Mr. Anderson has decided that he wants

my assistance at trial as well as the overwhelming need for assistance with three major

defendants at trial. The trial is expected to last approximately 3-4 weeks. It is also estimated that

if the case does not settle between now and trial that all 3 of these defendants, plus the Plaintiff

will proceed to trial. See attached Declaration of David C. Anderson.

Plaintiff’s lead trial counsel, Kevin Seibert, also has a trial starting at the end of Janaury

that is expected to last several weeks and soon thereafter has a preplanned vacation until March

STIPULATION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY DEADLINES

2

Case 1:11-cv-01141-AWI-SMS Document 45 Filed 01/17/13 Page 2 of 5
THE LAW OFFICES OF

KATHLEEN P. CLACK

6061 N. FRESNO STREET

SUITE 101

FRESNO, CA 93710

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

13.

Thus, under the current schedule, both Plaintiff and Defendants have very little time for

motions to compel, should they become necessary. As well, as discovery closes, both counsels

need to be able to devote full attention on this matter, and not be torn between two competing

interests.

The parties, therefore, agree that Plaintiff will conduct the depositions of Defendants

during the week of March 18, 2013, and that Defendants will conduct their witness depositions

during the week of March 25, 2013, particular schedules permitting. The parties further agree to

the close of non-Expert Discovery on April 15, 2013 with non-Expert filing deadline moved to

April 22, 2013.

II. GOOD CAUSE EXISTS FOR THE CONTINUANCE OF THE DISCOVERY

SCHEDULING ORDER DEADLINES

Scheduling orders entered before the final pretrial conference may be modified upon a

showing of “good cause.” Hannon v. Chater (N.D.Cal. 1995) 887 F.Supp. 1303; FRCP 16(b)(4). 

The reason for the “good cause” requirement for modification of a court’s scheduling order is

that such orders and their enforcement are regarded as an essential mechanism for cases

becoming trial-ready in an efficient, just, and certain manner. Rouse v. Farmers State Bank of

Jewell, Iowa (N.D.Iowa 1994) 866 F.Supp. 1191. With this understanding in mind, the parties

believe “good cause” is present to support the need for an extension of the discovery deadlines.

On February 29, 2012, United States Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder, issued a

Scheduling Conference Order And Order Regarding Continuance of Scheduling Order Deadline

for Discovery, P. 8, Paragraph 7. “Discovery Plan and Cut-off Dates: A. .... the court may order

after a showing of good cause...; and B. Unless otherwise stipulated between the parties or

ordered by the court pursuant to FRCP 26(b)(2).” The dates the Court set were as follows:

Deadline/Event Old Date

STIPULATION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY DEADLINES

3

Case 1:11-cv-01141-AWI-SMS Document 45 Filed 01/17/13 Page 3 of 5
THE LAW OFFICES OF

KATHLEEN P. CLACK

6061 N. FRESNO STREET

SUITE 101

FRESNO, CA 93710

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

Non-Expert Discovery Deadline February 8, 2013

Non-Dispositive Motion Filing Deadline February 15, 2013

The parties agree that the unexpired discovery deadlines need to be revised in order to

allow the parties to complete depositions within reasonable time frames that allow for nondispositive motions, within Defense counsel’s trial schedule.

III. STIPULATION

As shown in the previous section, the current schedule of deadlines needs to be revised

such that the parties can schedule depositions at a time when both counsel are available and have

adequate time to consider and prepare non-dispositive motions. Accordingly, the parties agree

that the deadlines in this case should be revised to reflect the dates shown in the chart below: 

Deadline/Event Old Date New Date

Non-Expert Discovery CutoffFebruary 8, 2013 April 15, 2013

Non-Dispositive Motion

Filing Deadline

February 15, 2013 April 22, 2013

This continuance of the non-expert discovery and non-dispositive motion filing deadlines

will not affect any other deadlines in this action. All remaining dates and deadlines as set by the

Court’s February 29, 2012 Scheduling Order are otherwise unaffected by this Stipulation and

Proposed Order. This stipulation renders Defendants’ ex parte application to alter the scheduling

deadline moot and Defendants hereby withdraw that application.

IT IS SO STIPULATED, THROUGH COUNSEL OF RECORD.

///

///

STIPULATION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY DEADLINES

4

Case 1:11-cv-01141-AWI-SMS Document 45 Filed 01/17/13 Page 4 of 5
THE LAW OFFICES OF

KATHLEEN P. CLACK

6061 N. FRESNO STREET

SUITE 101

FRESNO, CA 93710

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

Dated: January 16, 2013 LAW OFFICES OF KATHLEEN P. CLACK

/s/ Kathleen P. Clack

___________________________________

Kathleen P. Clack

Attorney for Defendants

BIC SCHEDIWY AND LAURA STRAUSS

DATES: January 16, 2013 DOWNEY BRAND, LLP

/s/ Thomas Marrs

___________________________________

Thomas Marrs

Attorneys for Plaintiff

TRI-DAM

ORDER

This matter came before the Court on the STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING

CONTINUANCE OF DISCOVERY SCHEDULING ORDER DEADLINES DUE TO

SCHEDULING CONFLICT. For the reasons stated in the Stipulation and for good cause

showing, the Court ADOPTS the Stipulation and GRANTS the relief requested therein.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the deadline to complete non-expert

discovery is now April 15, 2013 and the deadline to file non-dispositive motions is now April 22,

2013. All remaining dates and deadlines as set by the Court's February 29, 2012 Scheduling

Order remain as set and are otherwise unaffected by this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 1/17/2013 /s/ SANDRA M. SNYDER 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

STIPULATION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY DEADLINES

5

Case 1:11-cv-01141-AWI-SMS Document 45 Filed 01/17/13 Page 5 of 5