Hipschman
Hipschman v. County of San Diego
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 Case No.: 22CV903-AJB (BLM) CAROLINA HIPSCHMAN; ALEXANDER
HIPSCHMAN,
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO MODIFY Plaintiffs, SCHEDULING ORDER AND REOPEN LIMITED DISCOVERY v. 13 [ECF No. 120] COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 Currently before the Court is Plaintiffs’ November 8, 2024 Motion to Modify the Scheduling Order and Reopen Limited Discovery [ECF No. 120 (“Mot.”)] and Defendants’ November 18, 2024 opposition to the motion [ECF No. 124 (“Oppo.”)]. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiffs’ motion is DENIED. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On June 21, 2022, Plaintiffs initiated this action alleging, , that Defendants County of San Diego, Nidia Romero, Elizabeth Samuels, Jose Padilla, and Mary Shehee (“County Defendants”) violated their civil rights by improperly seizing their minor child from their possession without a warrant or probable cause. ECF No. 1. On December 8, 2022,…