(PC) Chavez v. St. Andre

1 Andrew Kopke, SBN 340036 Kopke Christiana & Rastetter LLP 2 199 Cook Street, Suite 308 Brooklyn, NY 11206 3 andrew@kcrllp.com (917) 451-9525 4 Attorney for Plaintiff 5 Brian Chan, SBN 299926 6 Deputy Attorney General 1300 I Street, Suite 125 7 P.O. Box 944255 Sacramento, CA 94244-2550 8 Telephone: (916) 210-7368 9 Fax: (916) 324-5205 E-mail: Brian.Chan@doj.ca.gov 10 Attorney for Defendants 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 12 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 13 Michael Ray Chavez, Case No. 2:24-cv-01384-DJC-JDP 14 Plaintiff, STIPULATED REQUEST TO MODIFY THE SCHEDULING ORDER 15 vs. 16 Rob St. Andre, et al., 17 Defendants. 18 19 To the Honorable Court: 20 Pursuant to Local Rules 143 and 144, the parties respectfully submit this stipulated 21 request to modify the scheduling order. See Sched. Order, ECF Nos. 22, 23. Under the current 22 scheduling order, initial expert disclosures are due May 14, 2026, rebuttal expert disclosures are 23 due June 4, 2026, fact discovery must be completed by July 16, 2026, and dispositive motions 24 must be heard by October 15, 2026. Id. A trial date has not been set. This is the parties’ first 25 request to modify the scheduling order. 26 27 1 Under Rule 16, there is good cause to modify a pre-trial scheduling order when, despite 2 the moving party’s diligence, the scheduling order deadlines cannot reasonably be met. Fed. R. 3 Civ. P. 16(b)(4); Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). As 4 explained below, there is good cause to modify the scheduling order in this case because, despite 5 the parties’ diligence, it will be impossible to complete fact and expert discovery by the current 6 deadlines. 7 The discovery process began on February 26, 2025, when Magistrate Judge Peterson 8 issued the initial scheduling order. See Sched. Order, ECF Nos. 22, 23. On March 21, 2025, the 9 parties exchanged initial disclosures, and on May 7, 2025, Plaintiff served his first Rule 34 10 Requests for Production (“RFPs”). Defendants served responses and most of the responsive 11 documents to Plaintiff on June 6, 2025, but there was a delay with the production of the 12 remaining responsive documents because, in Defendants’ view, the remaining documents and 13 information could only be disclosed pursuant to a protective order, and the parties could not 14 agree to the terms of such an order. On September 9, 2025, the parties filed informal letter briefs 15 summarizing their positions, and on September 11, 2025, Magistrate Judge Peterson held an 16 informal conference on the protective order. See Defs.’ Ltr. Brief, ECF No. 29; Pl.’s Ltr. Brief, 17 ECF No. 30; Minute Order, ECF No. 31. After Magistrate Judge Peterson weighed in, the parties 18 resolved their dispute and filed a proposed protective order, which Magistrate Judge Peterson 19 approved. See Protective Order, ECF No. 33. Since that time, the parties have continued to 20 exchange discovery but, given the nature of the case, the discovery is quite voluminous1 and 21 there have been several subsequent disputes, which the parties are still endeavoring to resolve 22 without the Court’s intervention. 23 In light of the above, the parties respectfully submit that the current discovery deadlines 24 cannot reasonably be met and request that these deadlines be extended by approximately 6 25 26 1 For example, the parties have exchanged over 4000 pages of medical records. 27 1 || months. Additionally, the parties request that the expert disclosure deadlines be reset such that 2 || they fall after fact discovery has been completed. The parties’ proposed deadlines are as follows: 3 - Any motions to compel must be filed by October 23, 2026; 4 - Fact discovery must be completed by November 13, 2026; 5 - Initial expert disclosures are due January 15, 2027; 6 - Rebuttal expert disclosures are due February 5, 2027; 7 - Dispositive motions must be heard by April 17, 2027. 8 || DATED: March 23, 2026 /s/ Andrew Kopke /s/ Brian Chan ? Andrew J. Kopke Brian Chan 10 Attorney for Plaintiff Attorney for Defendants 11 12 |! PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 QE 18 Dated: _ March 26, 2026 19 30 JEREMY D. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28