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)

Download PDF
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?