Evans v. Boilermaker-Blacksmith National Pension Trust et al.

Filing 16

STIPULATION and ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 8/25/16 ORDERING the parties hereby stipulate to Plaintiff's Objection, without Defendants waiving their right to assert objections in response to discovery requests, to be addressed pursuant to normal discovery procedures. The parties further stipulate that all other portions of the Order not addressed in Plaintiff's Objection are in effect. (Becknal, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

Teresa S. Renaker, Cal. Bar No. 187800
Margaret E. Hasselman, Cal. Bar No.
228529
Kirsten G. Scott, Cal Bar. No. 253464
RENAKER HASSELMAN LLP
235 Montgomery St., Suite 944
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

8
9

Attorneys for Plaintiff

10
11

BEESON, TAYER & BODINE, APC
520 Capitol Mall, Suite 300
Sacramento, CA 95814-4714
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
CAROL A. KRSTULIC
[Admitted Pro Hac Vice]
BLAKE & UHLIG, P.A.
753 State Avenue, Suite 745
Kansas City, KS 66101
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendants

JOHN C. PROVOST, SBN 125458

12
13
14
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

15
16

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

17

SACRAMENTO DIVISION

18

DARRYL EVANS,

19

Plaintiff,

20
21
22
23
24
25

Case No. 16-CV-01043-TLN-KJN

v.
BOILERMAKER-BLACKSMITH NATIONAL
PENSION TRUST AND BOARD OF
TRUSTEES OF THE BOILERMAKERBLACKSMITH NATIONAL PENSION
TRUST,

STIPULATION AND ORDER
REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTION
TO PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER

Defendants.

26
27
28
STIPULATION AND ORDER RE: P’S OBJECTION TO PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER
CASE NO. 16-CV-01043-TLN-KJN

WHEREAS, the Court issued a Pretrial Scheduling Order (“Order”) in this case on

1
2

August 2, 2016, which covered multiple topics, including the scope of discovery in this case;
WHEREAS, the Court’s Order was to become final unless objections were filed within

3
4

fourteen days of service of the Order;
WHEREAS, on August 16, 2016, Plaintiff filed an objection regarding the Order

5
6

(“Plaintiff’s Objection”), in which he objected to the scope of discovery as set forth in Section

7

IV of the Order, but did not object to any other part of the Order;
WHEREAS, on August 17, 2016, the parties received an email from the Court’s

8
9

Courtroom Deputy indicating that the Court would like to know if the parties are willing to

10

stipulate to Plaintiff’s Objection, and if so, requesting that the parties file a stipulation and

11

proposed order to that effect;
WHEREAS, the parties have met and conferred and have reached agreement on this

12
13

issue;
THEREFORE, the parties hereby stipulate to Plaintiff’s Objection, without Defendants

14
15

waiving their right to assert objections in response to discovery requests, to be addressed

16

pursuant to normal discovery procedures. The parties further stipulate that all other portions of

17

the Order not addressed in Plaintiff’s Objection are in effect.

18
19

Dated: August 24, 2016

Respectfully submitted,

20
RENAKER HASSELMAN LLP

21
By:

22

___/ s / Kirsten Scott____________
Kirsten Scott
Attorneys for Plaintiff

23
24
25

//

26

//

27

//

28
STIPULATION AND ORDER RE: P’S OBJECTION TO PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER
CASE NO. 16-CV-01043-TLN-KJN

PAGE 2

1

Dated: August 24, 2016

Respectfully submitted,

2
By:

3

__/ s / Carol Krstulic___________
Carol Krstulic
Attorneys for Defendants

4
5
6
7

SIGNATURE ATTESTATION

8
9
10

I, Kirsten Scott, hereby attest that the concurrence in the filing of the document has been
obtained from the other signatory on this document.

11
12

Dated: August 24, 2016

By:

___/ s / Kirsten Scott____________
Kirsten Scott

13
14
15
16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18
19

Dated: August 25, 2016

20
21
22

Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge

23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION AND ORDER RE: P’S OBJECTION TO PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER
CASE NO. 16-CV-01043-TLN-KJN

PAGE 3