Bess v. State of California, et al

Filing 99

STIPULATION and ORDER re 98 deposition of pltf Sam Bess, signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 1/15/09. Pltf's deposition will take place over three consecutive seven-hour days, Feb 25-27, 2009, and take place in downtown Sacramento.(Kastilahn, A)

Download PDF
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 GEOFFREY A. BEATY, ESQ. (Bar No. 84997) R. MANUEL FORTES, ESQ. (Bar No. 139249) RANKIN, SPROAT, MIRES, BEATY & REYNOLDS A Professional Corporation 1333 Broadway, Suite 600 Oakland, CA 94612 Tel: (510) 465-3922 Fax: (510) 452-3006 Attorneys for Defendants, MATTHEW CATE and DAVID SHAW [E-FILING MANDATORY] UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAM BESS, Plaintiff, vs. MATTHEW CATE, DAVID SHAW, et al., Defendants. __________________________________/ Case Number: 2:07-CV-01989-JAM-JFM Judge: Hon. John A. Mendez STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING DEPOSITION OF PLAINTIFF SAM BESS Trial: November 16, 2009 Pursuant to Rule 30(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Rule 30(d)), Plaintiff Sam Bess ("Plaintiff") and Defendants Matthew Cate, David Shaw, Roderick Hickman, Jeanne Woodford, John Dovey, Scott Kernan, and Martin Hoshino (together, "Defendants"), collectively referred to as the "Parties," hereby stipulate as follows: 1. Defendants believe that, due to the number of allegations and documents referenced in the complaint, the "1 day of 7 hours" limitation imposed by Rule 30(d) will provide insufficient time to take the deposition of Plaintiff. 2. The Parties therefore stipulate that Plaintiff's deposition will take place over three consecutive seven-hour days. The parties previously stipulated that the deposition would take place on December 17-19, 2008, but prior to those dates, they agreed to continue the deposition 1 Case No. 2:07-CV-01989-JAM- Stipulation and Proposed Order Regarding Deposition of Plaintiff JFM PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com 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 to future dates. The parties hereby stipulate that the deposition will take place on February 2527, 2009. 3. The Parties further stipulate that Defendants shall collectively complete Plaintiff's deposition on those dates, with no further deposition of Plaintiff and no reservation of rights to re-open the deposition by any of Defendants for any reason, except for good cause shown, and with leave of Court pursuant to Rule 30(d)(1). 4. Sacramento. Dated: January 14, 2009. RANKIN, SPROAT, MIRES, BEATY & REYNOLDS GEOFFREY A. BEATY R. MANUEL FORTES By: /s/ R. Manuel Fortes R. MANUEL FORTES Attorneys for Defendants MATTHEW CATE and DAVID SHAW The Parties also stipulate that Plaintiff's deposition will take place in downtown EDMUND G. BROWN JR. Attorney General of the State of California JACOB A. APPELSMITH Senior Assistant Attorney General ALICIA M. B. FOWLER Supervising Deputy Attorney General SCOTT H. WYCKOFF Deputy Attorney General TAMARA MORGAN Deputy Attorney General By: /s/ Scott H. Wyckoff (as authorized on 1/9/09) SCOTT H. WYCKOFF Attorneys for Defendants RODERICK HICKMAN, JEANNE WOODFORD, JOHN DOVEY, SCOTT KERNAN, and MARTIN HOSHINO Stipulation and Proposed Order Regarding Deposition of Plaintiff 2 Case No. 2:07-CV-01989-JAM- JFM PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com 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 Dated: January 15, 2009 MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP BROOKS M. BEARD DAVID E. MELAUGH J. RYAN GILFOIL SARA MAHDAVI EDWARD J. CADEN LAW OFFICE OF EDWARD J. CADEN By: J. Ryan Gilfoil (as authorized on 1/8/09) J. RYAN GILFOIL Attorneys for Plaintiff SAM BESS PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/ John A. Mendez HON. JOHN A. MENDEZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Stipulation and Proposed Order Regarding Deposition of Plaintiff 3 Case No. 2:07-CV-01989-JAM- JFM PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?