Fox et al v. Anderson et al

Filing 25

STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 3/12/2012 MODIFYING the 13 Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order. Disclosure of Expert Witnesses due by 4/23/2012, Disclosure of Supplemental and Rebuttal Witnesses due by 5/15/2012. (Michel, G)

1
2
3
4

A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
Terence J. Cassidy, SBN 99180
Ashley M. Wisniewski, SBN 264601
350 University Ave., Suite 200
Sacramento, California 95825
TEL: [phone]
FAX: [phone]

5
6

Attorneys for Defendants: COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, SCOTT ANDERSON,
RICH COCKERTON, BRENDAN MCATEE, , and CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

BARRY FOX, NARCISA FOX, individually
and as parents and natural guardians and
Guardians ad litem of A.F., D.F., S.F. AND
M.F., minors,

13

Case No. 2:11-cv-00419-JAM-KJN
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO MODIFY
PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER

Plaintiffs,

14

vs.

15

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, SCOTT
ANDERSON, R. COCKERTON, B.
MCATEE, ELISA OLMO, SOKA OM,
JASON WALKUP, JOY PIKE, CITY OF
R A N C H O C O R D O V A , J AS MIN E
DELGADO and DOES 1 THROUGH 30,

16
17
18

Defendants.
19

/

20

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between Plaintiffs BARRY FOX,

21

and NARCISA FOX, and Defendants COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, SCOTT ANDERSON,

22

RICH COCKERTON, BRENDAN MCATEE, and CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA, by through

23

their undersigned Counsel, and Defendant YAZMIN DELGADO (sued as JASMINE DELGADO),

24

in pro per, pursuant to Local Rules 143 and 144 as follows:

25

1.

The parties respectfully request that the District Court modify the Pre-Trial

26

Scheduling Order to allow an approximate thirty (30) additional days for the disclosure of

27

experts, based on good cause appearing therefor as more fully set forth below.

28

2.

PORTER * SCOTT

1

ATTORNEYS
3 5 0 U N I V E R S IT Y A V E ., S U IT E 2 0 0
SACRAM ENTO , CA 95825
T E L : 9 1 6 . 9 2 9 .1 4 8 1
F A X : 9 1 6 . 9 2 7 .3 7 0 6

www.porterscott.com

This action arises out of alleged violations of Plaintiffs’ federal civil rights and

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO M ODIFY PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER
00995263.WPD

1

state law claims against Defendants in connection with the warrantless seizure of minor

2

children.

3

3.

Plaintiffs filed a complaint on March 18, 2011. Defendants filed a motion to

4

dismiss the complaint, hearing for which was set for June 15, 2011. While this was pending,

5

the court issued its PreTrial Scheduling Order on April 28, 2011, with the current dates

6

including trial commencing on December 3, 2012. (Docket Entry No. 13)

7

4.

On May 3, 2011, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint, to which Defendants

8

filed a Motion to Dismiss. The Court issued a ruling on the motion to dismiss on September

9

23, 2011, giving Plaintiffs additional opportunity to amend.

10

5.

The parties informally agreed relevancy of information could not be properly

11

determined until the pleadings were “at issue,” thus believed formal deposition discovery

12

should be delayed until such time as the court issues its order on the motion to dismiss.

13

6.

As such, in order to ensure percipient witness discovery is completed to the

14

parties’ satisfaction so that designated expert witnesses may have sufficient time to fully

15

review and prepare expert reports, the parties in good faith believe additional time is

16

necessary for expert disclosures under the current schedule. The parties do not seek

17

modification of the dates currently set for the Final Pre-Trial Conference, and Trial. The

18

parties have not sought any prior modifications of the Pre-Trial Scheduling Order.

19

Therefore, the parties respectfully submit that good cause exists to amend the Pre-

20

Trial Scheduling Order dated April 28, 2011, and therefore request modification of the Pre-

21

Trial Scheduling Order, as follows:

22

Expert witness disclosure deadline

April 23, 2012

23

Supplemental and Rebuttal witness disclosure deadline

May 15, 2012

24

Close of discovery

June 15, 2012 (unchanged)

25

Filing deadline for all dispositive motions

July 25, 2012 (unchanged)

26

Last day for hearing on dispositive motions

August 22, 2012 (unchanged)

27

Final pre-trial conference

October 5, 2012 (unchanged)

28

Trial

December 3, 2012 (unchanged)

PORTER * SCOTT

2

ATTORNEYS
3 5 0 U N I V E R S IT Y A V E ., S U IT E 2 0 0
SACRAM ENTO , CA 95825
T E L : 9 1 6 . 9 2 9 .1 4 8 1
F A X : 9 1 6 . 9 2 7 .3 7 0 6

www.porterscott.com

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO M ODIFY PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER
00995263.WPD

1
2

This Stipulation may be signed in counterparts and any facsimile or electronic
signature shall be as valid as an original signature.

3

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

4
DATED: March 7, 2012

LAW OFFICES OF LANNY T. WINBERRY

5
6
By
7

/s/ Lanny T. Winberry
Lanny T. Winberry (as authorized on March 7, 2012)
Attorney for Plaintiffs

8
9
10

DATED: March 7, 2012

PORTER SCOTT
A Professional Corporation

11
12

By

13
14
15

/s/ John R. Whitefleet
Terence J. Cassidy
John R. Whitefleet
Attorneys for Defendants
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, SCOTT
ANDERSON, RICH COCKERTON,
BRENDAN MCATEE, and CITY OF
RANCHO CORDOVA

16
17

DATED: March 7, 2012

18

By /s/ Yazmin Delgado
Defendant YAZMIN DELGAO (sued as JASMINE
G DELGADO) (as authorized on March 9, 2012)

19
20

ORDER
Having reviewed the above stipulation and good cause appearing therefor, IT IS HEREBY

21
ORDERED that the Pre-Trial Scheduling Order, be modified with the new schedule as set forth
22
above.
23
IT IS SO ORDERED.
24
DATED: 3/12/2012
25
/s/ John A. Mendez
United States District Judge
John A. Mendez

26
27
28
PORTER * SCOTT

3

ATTORNEYS
3 5 0 U N I V E R S IT Y A V E ., S U IT E 2 0 0
SACRAM ENTO , CA 95825
T E L : 9 1 6 . 9 2 9 .1 4 8 1
F A X : 9 1 6 . 9 2 7 .3 7 0 6

www.porterscott.com

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO M ODIFY PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER
00995263.WPD