Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01777/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01777-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Feather River Community College
Defendant
Paul Thein
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

JOHNSON 

SCHACHTER & 

LEWIS

A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION

2180 HARVARD STREET, SUITE 560

SACRAMENTO, CA 95815

   
  

1

ROBERT H. JOHNSON (SBN O48067)

JENNIFER L. HIPPO (SBN 222219)

JOHNSON SCHACHTER & LEWIS

A Professional Law Corporation

California Plaza

2180 Harvard Street, Suite 560

Sacramento, CA 95815

Telephone: (916) 921-5800

Facsimile: (916) 921-0247

Attorneys for FEATHER RIVER COMMUNITY COLLEGE (erroneously sued as FEATHER

RIVER COMMUNITY COLLEGE)

JEFFREY E. BEESON (SBN 200897)

MICHAEL A. TERHORST (SBN 164679

Attorneys at Law

BEESON TERHORST LLP

510 Bercut Drive, suite V

Sacramento, CA 95811-0111

Telephone: (916) 444-3400

Facsimile: (916) 444-3421

Attorneys for Plaintiff PAUL THEIN

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PAUL THEIN,

Plaintiff,

 v.

FEATHER RIVER COMMUNITY COLLEGE

Defendants.

______________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO. 2:06-CV-01777-FCD-GGH

STIPULATED MOTION AND ORDER

FOR EXTENSION OF PRE-TRIAL

AND TRIAL DEADLINES

“AS MODIFIED”

Plaintiff PAUL THEIN and Defendant FEATHER RIVER COMMUNITY COLLEGE

DISTRICT (hereinafter “FRC”) (sued herein as FEATHER RIVER COMMUNITY COLLEGE)

submit the following STIPULATED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF PRE-TRIAL and TRIAL

DEADLINES (“Motion”):

By this Motion, Plaintiff Paul Thein and Defendant Feather River Community College

District (referred to collectively as the “Parties”) seek to modify the pre-trial scheduling order to

Case 2:06-cv-01777-KJM-GGH Document 30 Filed 04/22/08 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

JOHNSON 

SCHACHTER & 

LEWIS

A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION

2180 HARVARD STREET, SUITE 560

SACRAMENTO, CA 95815

   
  

1 There are three state cases also pending in Plumas County Superior Court: Thein v. FRCCD, et. al, Case

No. 26973; Jaureguito v. FRCCD, et. al., Case No. 26975; and Wartluft v. FRCCD et. al., Case No. 26974. These

matters are presently being moved to Butte County pursuant to a stipulation between the parties to change venue.

Further there are also decisions pending in the California State Personnel Board for the matters entitled Wartluft v.

FRCCD, et. al., Case No. 06-1979; Jaureguito v. FRCCD, et. al., Case No. 06-2186; and Thein v. FRCCD, et. al.,

Case No. 06-1942. 

2

extend the period for discovery and all other pre-trial deadlines in this matter, originally set by the

Court’s November 20, 2007 Order. The Parties are concurrently filing an identical stipulation in

the related case of Jaureguito v. Feather River Community College District, Case No. 2:06-CV02687-FCD-GGH.

This matter is one of three cases that, although not consolidated, are related. The other

cases related to this matter are Jaureguito v. Feather River Community College District, Case No.

2:06-CV-02687-FCD-GGH, the trial of which is set for January 13, 2009 and Wartluft v. Feather

River Community College District, Case No. 2:07-cv-02023-LEW-GGH, the trial of which is set

for April 21, 2009. The Parties, in order to save costs as well as judicial time and resources have

agreed that all discovery in any of these and six additional matters pending in other forums1

 may

be used at trial in each of these related matters. The parties are further in agreement, in order to

avoid confusion, that all dates in the above entitled matter and Jaureguito v. Feather River

Community College District, including the dates of the Final Pre-trial conference and filing of the

Joint Pre-trial Statement, should also be scheduled for the same date. Further, any settlement

conferences scheduled in the above entitled matter as well as the matter of Jaureguito v. Feather

River Community College District should be scheduled on the same date and the Plaintiff in the

matter of Wartluft v. Feather River Community College District shall be directed to attend the

same settlement conference. 

The Parties have already engaged in extensive discovery, including the taking of 32

depositions spanning a 27 day period in California, Idaho, New York, and Ohio, participated in a

lengthy mediation, and completed 13 days of testimony in a related administrative hearing before

the California State Personnel board. Issues have arisen in the mediation and administrative

hearing that necessitate further discovery. The Parties therefore seek to extend the current pretrial deadlines so that they may complete discovery. The Parties request that the dates be

Case 2:06-cv-01777-KJM-GGH Document 30 Filed 04/22/08 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

JOHNSON 

SCHACHTER & 

LEWIS

A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION

2180 HARVARD STREET, SUITE 560

SACRAMENTO, CA 95815

   
  

3

extended to coincide with the dates in the related case of Wartluft v. Feather River Community

College District, Action No. 2:07-cv-2023 FCD/GGH.

Federal rule of Civil Procedure 16(b) provides that a pre-trial order may be modified,

“upon a showing of good cause.” This Court may modify a pre-trial scheduling order if “it cannot

reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.” Johnson v.

Mammoth Recreations, Inc.., 975 F.2d. 604, 609 (9th Civ. 1992) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 16,

advisory committee’s notes (1983 amendment)). The “good cause” inquiry focuses primarily on

the “diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” Id.

Here, the Parties have diligently participated in discovery, but are unable to meet the

scheduling deadlines due to the complex nature of this case. Therefore, good cause exists for an

extension of the pre-trial deadlines in this matter.

The Parties stipulate to the following proposed pre-trial dates and trial date:

Discovery Closes: August 15, 2008

Expert Disclosures Due: August 29, 2008

Supplemental Expert Disclosures Due: September 18, 2008

Expert Discovery Cutoff: October 16, 2008

Dispositive Motion Deadline: December 19, 2008

The Final Pre-Trial Conference date; the date for filing the Joint Pre-Trial statement; and

the date set for the Jury Trial will remain unchanged.

The Parties stipulate only to continue the aforementioned deadlines, leaving the original

November 20, 2007 Order otherwise in tact.

The Parties further stipulate to consider this matter submitted on this Motion pursuant to

Eastern District Court of California Local Rule No. 78-2230(h).

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

Dated: March __, 2008 BEESON TERHORST LLP

By: ___/s/ MichaelA. Terhorst________________ MICHAEL A. TERHORST

Attorneys for Plaintiff PAUL THEIN

Case 2:06-cv-01777-KJM-GGH Document 30 Filed 04/22/08 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

JOHNSON 

SCHACHTER & 

LEWIS

A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION

2180 HARVARD STREET, SUITE 560

SACRAMENTO, CA 95815

   
  

4

Dated: March ___, 2008 JOHNSON SCHACHTER & LEWIS

A Professional Law Corporation

By: __/s/ Robert H. Johnson________________ ROBERT H. JOHN SON

Attorneys for Defendant FEATHER RIVER

COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT

ORDER

Upon review of the request/stipulation above and of the docket the court shall GRANT in

part the parties’ request. Although, the parties have attempted to submit a stipulation that would

leave the final pretrial conference and the jury trial dates as set, the court cannot accommodate

that part of the request. Therefore, the court HEREBY SETS the following revised schedule:

The discovery deadline: July 18, 2008; 

Designation of expert witnesses: August 29, 2008;

Supplemental rebuttal designations: September 18, 2008; 

Expert discovery closes: October 16, 2008; 

All dispositive motions shall be heard no later than: December 19, 2008;

The final pretrial conference is set for March 6, 2009 at 2:00 p.m.; and

The jury trial is set for May 12, 2009 at 9:00 a.m. 

The court notes for the record that this is the third request/stipulation filed by the parties

and the request/stipulation was submitted after the expiration of the discovery and designation of

expert deadlines. Accordingly, the court shall not allow any further extensions absent a properly

filed motion pursuant to the Court’s Pretrial Scheduling Order and the District’s local rules. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 22, 2008

Case 2:06-cv-01777-KJM-GGH Document 30 Filed 04/22/08 Page 4 of 4