Grismore et al v. City of Bakersfield et al

Filing 45

STIPULATION and ORDER 42 Following Discovery Conference, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 4/13/2018. Discovery Deadlines: Non-Expert 6/29/2018; Expert 8/17/2018. Non-Dispositive Motion Deadlines: Filed by 8/27/2018; Hearing by 9/28/2018. Dispositive Motion Deadlines: Filed by 10/15/2018; Hearing by 11/16/2018. (Hall, S)

THE LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS C. SEABAUGH

1 Thomas C. Seabaugh, Esq., SBN 272458 | [e-mail]
601 West Fifth Street, Eighth Floor

2 Los Angeles, CA 90071
3

Telephone: [phone]
CHAIN COHN STILES

4 Neil K. Gehlawat, Esq., SBN 289388 | [e-mail]
1731 Chester Avenue

5 Bakersfield, CA 93301
Telephone: [phone]

6 Facsimile: [phone]
7 Attorneys for Plaintiff
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

TIMOTHY GRISMORE, an individual;

11 XAVIER HINES, an individual,,
12
Plaintiffs,

13
14

v.

Case No.1:17-CV-00413-JLT
Hon. Jennifer L. Thurston
JOINT STIPULATION AND PROPOSED
ORDER FOLLOWING DISCOVERY
CONFERENCE

CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, a municipality;

15 OFFICER MELENDEZ, an individual;
16 OFFICER LUEVANO, an individual;
OFFICER POTEETE, an individual;

17 OFFICER CLARK, an individual;
OFFICER MCINTYRE, an individual;

18 OFFICER VAZQUEZ, an individual;

OFFICER BARAJAS, an individual;
SERGEANT MCAFEE, an individual;
20 and DOES 1-10, inclusive,

19

21
22

Defendants.

23
24
25
26
27
28

-1JOINT STIPULATION FOLLOWING DISCOVERY CONFERENCE

Case No.1:17-CV-00413-JLT

1
2

JOINT STIPULATION
COME NOW the parties jointly through their respective attorneys of record and stipulate

3 as follows:
4

1.

The Court recently conducted a telephonic conference regarding a discovery

5 dispute in this case (Doc. 40). The dispute concerns Defendants’ objections to Plaintiffs’ notice of
6 deposition of the City of Bakersfield pursuant to Rule 30(b)(6) with an accompanying request for
7 documents. Following the conference, the Court ordered the parties to meet and confer further
8 regarding the records that can be generated from the Blue Team software program (Doc. 41).
9

2.

The parties met and conferred on April 5, 2018. Prior to the meeting, the

10 Defendants’ counsel investigated and gathered information concerning the Blue Team software
11 and its functions. The parties discussed the Blue Team software and Defendants proposed to
12 produce Brent Stratton to testify regarding the Blue Team software.
13

3.

The parties discussed how best to proceed in terms of minimizing the expenditure

14 of unnecessary time and resources with respect to this dispute. There a substantial number of
15 subject matters identified in Plaintiffs’ Rule 30(b)(6) notice to which the Defendants have agreed
16 to produce a witness subject to their objections. There are a number of additional categories that
17 Plaintiffs have agreed to withdraw. With respect to other categories, the parties may be able to
18 agree on a narrowed compromise. The proposal to produce Brent Stratton is expected to help
19 refine the disputes concerning the Blue Team software.
20

4.

Accordingly, the parties propose to proceed with convening the Rule 30(b)(6)

21 deposition, with a plan to meet and confer afterwards to see what (if any) issues remain in dispute.
22 It is hoped that proceeding in this way will eliminate or at least narrow significantly the issues that
23 would need to be litigated in terms of this dispute. The parties propose to proceed this way with
24 the understanding that it does not imply a waiver of Defendants objections, nor does it imply a
25 waiver of Plaintiff’s right to bring a motion to compel as to the categories that remain in dispute.
26

5.

The current non-expert discovery cutoff is May 29, 2018. The parties propose to

27 extend that deadline for a number of reasons. First, extending the deadline will give the parties
28

-2JOINT STIPULATION FOLLOWING DISCOVERY CONFERENCE

Case No.1:17-CV-00413-JLT

1 additional time to explore compromises with respect to the disputes concerning the Rule 30(b)(6)
2 deposition. In the event an informal compromise is not possible, additional time will allow the
3 Plaintiffs the option of pursuing the desired discovery using other avenues while ensuring that
4 sufficient time remains for any remaining disputes to be litigated.
5

6.

Another factor favoring an extension is the move, now in progress, of Plaintiff’s

6 attorney Neil K. Gehlawat from the firm of Chain Cohn Stiles in Bakersfield to AlderLaw, P.C. in
7 Los Angeles. In addition, Defendants’ counsel will be in trial in Tucson, Arizona starting on April
8 17, 2018 which is expected to take two weeks. In addition, Defendants’ counsel has another trial
9 starting on May 22, 2018 before the Honorable Judge Ishii. These trials will likely affect the
10 scheduling of the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition.
11

7.

In addition, there are four to six additional percipient witnesses whose depositions

12 have to be completed. Some of these witnesses were previously scheduled but were unable to
13 make their depositions. Plaintiffs are going to attempt to produce these witnesses without need for
14 a subpoena; however, some of them may still need to be served to secure their deposition
15 testimony.
16

8.

The parties submit that, in light of the above, good cause exists to grant this

17 request. The parties submit that they have diligently pursued discovery in this matter and that no
18 previous requests have been made concerning the schedule. The proposed adjustment to the
19 schedule is as follows.
20 Deadline

Previous Date

Proposed Date

21 Non-Expert Discovery Cutoff

May 29, 2018

June 29, 2018

June 8, 2018

July 11, 2018

22

Initial Date for Expert Disclosures

23

Rebuttal Expert Disclosures

July 9, 2018

August 3, 2018

24

Expert Discovery Cut Off

July 23, 2018

August 17, 2018

25 Non Dispositive Motion Deadline
26

Filing

August 9, 2018

August 27, 2018

27

Hearing

September 6, 2018

September 28, 2018

28

-3JOINT STIPULATION FOLLOWING DISCOVERY CONFERENCE

Case No.1:17-CV-00413-JLT

1
2
3 Dispositive Motion Deadlines
4

Filing

September 21, 2018 October 15, 2018

5

Hearing

October 26, 2018

6

The above referenced dates will not adversely impact the trial date.

7

Respectfully Submitted,

November 16, 2018

8
9

Dated: April 13, 2018

10

MARDEROSIAN & COHEN

/s/ Michael G. Marderosian
By:_________________________________
Michael G. Marderosian,
Attorneys for Defendants above-named.

11
12
13
14

Dated: April 13, 2018

15

CHAIN COHN STILES

/s/ Neil Gehlawat
By:________________________________
Neil Gehlawat,
Attorneys for Plaintiff

16
17
18
19 Dated: April 13, 2018

LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS C. SEABAUGH

20
21
22

/s/ Thomas C. Seabaugh
By:________________________________
Thomas C. Seabaugh,
Attorneys for Plaintiff

23
24
25
26
27
28

-4JOINT STIPULATION FOLLOWING DISCOVERY CONFERENCE

Case No.1:17-CV-00413-JLT

ORDER

1
2
3

Pursuant to the Stipulation of the parties and good cause appearing therefor:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Scheduling Order be modified as follows:

4 Deadline

Current Date

New Date

5 Non-Expert Discovery Cutoff

May 29, 2018

June 29, 2018

June 8, 2018

July 11, 2018

6

Initial Date for Expert Disclosures

7

Rebuttal Expert Disclosures

July 9, 2018

August 3, 2018

8

Expert Discovery Cut Off

July 23, 2018

August 17, 2018

9 Non Dispositive Motion Deadline
10

Filing

August 9, 2018

August 27, 2018

11

Hearing

September 6, 2018

September 28, 2018

12 Dispositive Motion Deadlines
13

Filing

September 21, 2018 October 15, 2018

14

Hearing

October 26, 2018

November 16, 2018

15
16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

April 13, 2018

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-5JOINT STIPULATION FOLLOWING DISCOVERY CONFERENCE

Case No.1:17-CV-00413-JLT