Tandel v. County of Sacramento, et al.
Filing
52
STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 4/19/11 ORDERING the currently scheduled trial date of March 19, 2012 is hereby continued to June 25, 2012 at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 7. An amended Pretrial Scheduling Order will be issued setting forth other applicable deadlines consistent with that continued trial date. (Becknal, R)
1
2
3
4
5
6
LONGYEAR, O’DEA & LAVRA, LLP
3620 American River Drive, Suite 230
Sacramento, California 95864-5923
Tel: 916-974-8500 Fax: 916 974-8510
Van Longyear, CSB No. 84189
Jennifer Marquez, CSB No. 232194
Attorneys for Defendants, County of Sacramento,
Sheriff John McGinness, AnnMarie Boylan,
Tom Smith, M.D., Asa Hambly, M.D., and Hank Carl, R.N.
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
SANDIPKUMAR TANDEL,
Plaintiff,
12
13
vs.
14
CASE NO. 2:09-cv-00842 MCE GGH
STIPULATION AND ORDER
MODIFYING PRETRIAL
SCHEDULING ORDER
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al.,
Defendants.
15
16
17
The undersigned parties, which includes all parties to the above-entitled action, through
18
counsel, hereby STIPULATE and AGREE and jointly respectfully request modification of the
19
Court’s March 18, 2010 Pretrial Scheduling Order, for good cause as discussed herein.
20
21
In its March 18, 2010 Pretrial Scheduling Order, the Court set forth discovery deadlines
as follows:
22
Non-Expert Discovery: completed by May 19, 2011
23
Parties’ designation of expert witnesses: completed by July 18, 2011
24
Parties’ designation of rebuttal expert witnesses: completed by August 18, 2011
25
Deadline for filing dispositive motions: July 14, 2011
26
Final Pretrial Conference: January 26, 2012, 2:00 p.m.
27
Trial: March 19, 2012
28
1
The designation and preparation of expert witnesses requires that Plaintiff’s and Defendants’
2
expert witnesses have access to a complete record of discovery, including the complete
3
depositions of Plaintiff, various custody staff and certain of Plaintiff’s medical providers.
4
Furthermore, Defendants’ experts must perform an independent medical evaluation of Plaintiff,
5
which will provide Defendants experts information for their use in establishing Plaintiff’s
6
disability and future medical and rehabilitation needs.
7
Plaintiff has been diagnosed with Neuromyelitis Optica (NMO), an autoimmune,
8
inflammatory disorder that attacks the optic nerves and spinal cord. When Defendants first
9
attempted to notice Plaintiff’s deposition in November of 2009, Defendants were informed that
10
Plaintiff was too ill to provide testimony at that time. When the scheduling of Plaintiff’s
11
deposition resumed, Defendants were informed that due to Plaintiff’s medical condition,
12
Plaintiff’s deposition must be limited to 1-2 hour sessions. After all parties met and conferred
13
for the first three sessions of Plaintiff’s deposition, Defendants noticed Plaintiff’s deposition for
14
March 23-25, 2010 for an hour to two hours each session. Because Plaintiff was re-incarcerated
15
the day before his scheduled deposition, Plaintiff’s deposition did not go forward.
16
Defendants took the first session of Plaintiff’s deposition on April 14, 2010 and the
17
second session on May 5, 2010. On May 10, 2010, plaintiff suffered a recurrence of NMO and
18
was hospitalized. The third session of Plaintiff’s deposition was completed on September 6,
19
2010. Since April 14, 2010, Defendants have completed four sessions and anticipate one more
20
session to complete Plaintiff’s deposition.
21
During the fourth session of Plaintiff’s deposition on January 31, 2011, when Defendants
22
were making arrangements to complete Plaintiff’s deposition and have Plaintiff scheduled for an
23
independent medical evaluation, Defendants were informed that Plaintiff was leaving the country
24
to seek additional medical treatment in India and would not return to the United States until May
25
26, 2011. As a result, the parties agreed to modify the scheduling order to accommodate
26
Plaintiff’s medical treatment and Defendants’ independent medical evaluation of Plaintiff and
27
subsequent expert work-up of the case.
28
Stipulation and Proposed Order Modifying Pretrial Scheduling Order
Page 2
1
2
The parties hereby request and stipulate that the Court’s March 18, 2010 Pretrial
Scheduling Order be modified as follows:
3
Non-expert Discovery: completed by July 18, 2011
4
Parties’ designation of expert witnesses: completed by September 19, 2011
5
Parties’ designation of rebuttal expert witnesses: completed by October 10, 2011
6
Dispositive Motions
7
Plaintiff’s dispositive motion: filed by 4:00 p.m. on October 27, 2011
8
Defendants’ opposition and cross motion: filed by 4:00 p.m. on November 17,
9
2011
10
Plaintiff’s reply and opposition: filed by 4:00 p.m. on December 22, 2011
11
Defendants’ reply: filed by 4:00 p.m. on January 12, 2012
12
Hearing on Dispositive motions: by 2:00 p.m. on January 19, 2012
13
Joint Final Pretrial Statement: filed by April 12, 2012
14
Trial Brief: filed by April 19, 2012
15
Evidentiary or Procedural Motions: filed by April 26, 2012
16
Opposition: filed by May 10, 2012
17
Reply: filed by May 17, 2012
18
Final Pretrial Conference: on May 24, 2012 at 2:00 p.m.
19
Trial: June 25, 2012
20
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
21
Date: April 6, 2011
22
23
24
LAW OFFICES OF GERI LYNN GREEN, LC
By: /s/ Geri Lynn Green
GERI LYNN GREEN
Attorney for Plaintiff
25
26
27
28
Stipulation and Proposed Order Modifying Pretrial Scheduling Order
Page 3
.
1
Date: April 6, 2011
LONGYEAR, O’DEA & LAVRA, LLP
Date: April 6, 2011
By: /s/ Jennifer Marquez
.
JENNIFER MARQUEZ
Attorney for Defendants County of
Sacramento, Sheriff John McGinness,
AnnMarie Boylan, Tom Smith, M.D., Asa
Hambly, M.D., and Hank Carl, R.N.
PORTER SCOTT
2
3
4
5
6
By: /s/ Norm Prior
NORM PRIOR
Attorney for Defendants
Evalyn Horowitz, MD and
Chris Smith, MD
7
8
9
10
11
12
ORDER
13
Based on the foregoing stipulation of the parties, and good cause appearing therefor, the
14
currently scheduled trial date of March 19, 2012 is hereby continued to June 25, 2012 at
15
9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 7. An amended Pretrial Scheduling Order will be issued setting forth
16
other applicable deadlines consistent with that continued trial date.
17
IT IS SO ORDERED.
18
19
DATED: April 19, 2011
20
__________________________________
MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
21
22
23
24
DEAC_Signature-END:
04if0d0-fkhfkh
25
26
27
28
Stipulation and Proposed Order Modifying Pretrial Scheduling Order
Page 4
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?