Andrea Jarreau-Griffin, et al v. City of Vallejo, et al

Filing 89

STIPULATION and ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 10/12/2016 ORDERING that the court amends the pretrial scheduling order and sets forth the following dates: Settlement Conference set for 3/17/2017; Discovery due by 4/30/2017; Expert Discovery completion 5/31/2017; Dispositive Motions heard by 7/28/2017; Joint pretrial conf. statements due 9/15/2017; Final Pretrial Conference set for 10/6/2017; Trial Briefs due 10/23/2017; Jury Trial set for 11/6/2017. (Zignago, K.)

1
2
3
4
5
6

CLAUDIA M. QUINTANA
City Attorney, SBN 178613
Kelly J. Trujillo
Deputy City Attorney, SBN 244286
CITY OF VALLEJO, City Hall
555 Santa Clara Street, P.O. Box 3068
Vallejo, CA 94590
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

7
8
9
10
11
12
13

Corey Page (Evans), State Bar No. 218789
Geneva Page, State Bar No. 235633
EVANS & PAGE
2912 Diamond Street #346
San Francisco, CA 94131
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
ANDREA JARREAU-GRIFFIN, individually and
as a personal representative of the estate of GUY J.
JARREAU, JR.; the estate of GUY J. JARREAU,
JR.

Thomas F. Bertrand, State Bar No. 056560
Richard W. Osman, State Bar No. 167993
Sheila D. Crawford, State Bar No. 278292
BERTRAND, FOX, ELLIOT,
OSMAN & WENZEL
The Waterfront Building
2749 Hyde Street
San Francisco, California 94109
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

14
15

Attorneys for Defendants
CITY OF VALLEJO and KENT TRIBBLE

16
17
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
18
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
19
20
21
22

ANDREA JARREAU-GRIFFIN, individually
and as a personal representative of the estate of
GUY J. JARREAU, JR.; the estate of GUY J.
JARREAU, JR.,

23
24
25
26
27
28

Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF VALLEJO; KENT TRIBBLE,
individually and in his official capacity as a
police officer; DOES 1-10,
Defendants.

Case No. 2:12-CV-02979-KJM-KJN

STIPULATION TO CONTINUE SETTLEMENT
CONFERENCE AND AMEND SCHEDULING
ORDER BY CONTINUING DATES;
DECLARATION OF COREY EVANS; ORDER

1

INTRODUCTION

2

The parties by and through their designated counsel, pursuant to Local Rule 144(a) and Federal

3

Rule of Civil Procedure 6, hereby submit this Stipulation to Continue Settlement Conference and Amend

4

Scheduling Order By Continuing Date in this matter. This is the fifth stipulation to alter the pretrial

5

scheduling order, the last being filed on August 14, 2015. The first two stipulations requested alterations

6

to the scheduling order so the parties could wait to conduct discovery while motion practice was

7

completed regarding the possible bankruptcy bar to plaintiffs’ claims.

8

resolved in May 2015, and prior to that time, the parties had an agreement not to conduct and/or maintain

9

any discovery. The second two stipulations requested alterations to the scheduling order so plaintiffs’

10

counsel (husband and wife law practice) could attend to the delivery, birth, and infant care of their

11

newborn daughter.

The bankruptcy issue was

12

The parties have diligently conducted discovery and have worked cooperatively to overcome

13

discovery disputes without involving the court. Also, the parties had a discovery dispute hearing taken

14

off calendar when a new magistrate judge was appointed to the matter. Fortunately, the parties also

15

resolved that discovery dispute informally. Because of the complexity of this case, the numerous

16

witnesses and involved police personnel involved, defendants’ hurdles with accessing ESI, the fact that

17

plaintiff lives out of state and based on the discovery disputes and diligent attempts to resolve those

18

informally, discovery is ongoing and not complete.

19

2.

Subject to the Court’s approval, the parties propose to continue the settlement conference,

20

presently scheduled for October 17, 2016 with Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney to March 17, 2017,

21

or another available date thereafter.

22

3.

The proposed continuance is necessary and good cause exists for the requested stipulation.

23

Based on the January 13, 2016 stipulation of the parties, this court continued all pretrial dates as well as

24

trial in this matter. Trial is now scheduled for July 10, 2017, the fact discovery cutoff is November 25,

25

2016. The January 2016 stipulation was based largely on the birth of plaintiff’s counsel’s first child at

26

the end of November 2015, and the fact that plaintiff’s counsel and his wife (and law partner) would be

27

took off work until May 2016 because the delivery was more difficult than expected, and thus the post-

28
1
STIPULATION TO CONTINUE SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE; ORDER
Jarreau-Griffin v. City of Vallejo, et al.; USDC Eastern District Case No. 2:12-CV-02979-KJM-KJN

1
2

delivery recovery and care was more time-intensive (and lasting), than expected.
4.

Since plaintiffs’ counsel returned to work in May 2016, the parties have been working to

3

resolve multiple discovery issues that have arisen. Some discovery requests and production remained

4

outstanding for many months because the electronic data being sought presented technological hurdles

5

that had to be overcome to permit access to certain information. Here are a few examples, although there

6

are many outstanding discovery issues:

7
a.

Defendants were required to engage their IT Department to overcome significant

8
technological hurdles to search and provide certain requested and extensive electronic
9
data. As a result, the searches have taken much longer than expected.
10
11

b.

12

various Internal Affairs reports (“IA”). Fortunately, the parties were able to again avert

13

bringing the dispute to the court and instead informally resolved the issue which resulted

14

in the production of certain records to plaintiff for review two weeks ago. There still is

15

the potential that further requested records will be disputed and court intervention may be

16

necessary. This process—although fruitful—took many months to accomplish.

17

c.

18

certain evidence – a process that is ongoing.

19

4.

The parties engaged in lengthy meet and confer efforts regarding the production of

The parties are presently engaged in discussions to use a third party lab to analyze

The parties agree that further discovery, including several key depositions, will enhance

20

the prospects of resolving this case and therefore seek an additional five (5) months to conduct discovery

21

prior to the Settlement Conference.

22
5.

Because the parties will be completing discovery until April 2017, it will be impossible to

23
meet the remaining dates contained within the pretrial scheduling order.
24
25
26

6.

Based on the foregoing, the parties request that the scheduling order be adjusted as

follows:

27
28
2
STIPULATION TO CONTINUE SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE; ORDER
Jarreau-Griffin v. City of Vallejo, et al.; USDC Eastern District Case No. 2:12-CV-02979-KJM-KJN

1
Event

Present Date

Proposed New Date

Settlement conference

10/17/2016

3/17/2017

Discovery cutoff

11/25/2016

4/30/2017

Expert discovery completion

1/25/2017

5/31/2017

Dispositive motions heard by

3/10/2017

7/25/2017

Joint pretrial conf. statements due

5/12/2017

9/23/2017

Final pretrial conference

6/2/2017

10/6/2017

Trial briefs due

6/26/2017

10/20/2017

Jury trial

7/10/2017

11/6/2017

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
DECLARATION OF COREY EVANS

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

I, COREY EVANS, DECLARE:
1. I am the attorney of record for the plaintiffs in this action, and am licensed and in good standing in the
State of California, and the federal district courts of the State.
2. I am a partner in the two-attorney firm of Evans & Page, the other attorney is Geneva Page, who is
also my wife.
3. Based on the state of discovery, I do not believe that either party is ready to attend a settlement
conference with any reasonable hope of settling. Due to plaintiff Jarreau-Griffin’s residence out-of-state,
and her financial position, attending a fruitless settlement conference would be a great inconvenience.
4. On November 28, 2015, Geneva delivered our first child. The delivery was more difficult than either
of us was expecting, and the post-delivery recovery was also more difficult. Therefore, we returned to
work in May 2016.
5. Since returning to work, we have endeavored to resolve all of our discovery disputes as expeditiously
3
STIPULATION TO CONTINUE SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE; ORDER
Jarreau-Griffin v. City of Vallejo, et al.; USDC Eastern District Case No. 2:12-CV-02979-KJM-KJN

1

as possible, although, there has been some unavoidable delays such as the changing of magistrate judges

2

and defendants’ technological hurdles in accessing ESI.

3

5. If necessary, I would be happy to attend a telephonic status conference hearing to further describe the

4

difficulty and explain why this extension is reasonable and necessary. I declare under penalty of perjury

5

under the laws of the State of California and the United States, that these statements are true and correct

6

to the best of my knowledge.

7

Dated: October 7, 2016

8
9

/s/ Corey Page
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
IT IS SO STIPULATED, THROUGH COUNSEL OF RECORD.

DATED: October 7, 2016

10

BERTRAND, FOX, ELLIOT,
OSMAN & WENZEL
/s/ Richard W. Osman
Attorneys for Defendants

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

DATED: January 6, 2016

EVANS & PAGE

/s/ Corey Page
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED:
Good cause exists for granting the stipulation to move dates, and the court hereby amends the
pretrial scheduling order and sets forth the following dates:
a.

Settlement conference ................................................................... 3/17/2017

b.

Discovery cutoff............................................................................ 4/30/2017

c.

Expert discovery completion ........................................................ 5/31/2017

d.

Dispositive motions heard by....................................................... 7/28/2017

e.

Joint pretrial conf. statements due................................................ 9/15/2017

f.

Final pretrial conference................................................................10/6/2017

g.

Trial briefs due............................................................................. 10/23/2017

h.

Jury trial.........................................................................................11/6/2017

DATED: October 12, 2016

27

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
28
4
STIPULATION TO CONTINUE SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE; ORDER
Jarreau-Griffin v. City of Vallejo, et al.; USDC Eastern District Case No. 2:12-CV-02979-KJM-KJN