I.F. et al v. City of Vallejo et al

Filing 52

STIPULATION and ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 5/8/2020 MODIFYING the case management for this matter as follows: Expert disclosures: 5/11/2020; Rebuttal expert disclosures: 6/8/2020; Joint Statement summarizing all law and motio n: 5/26/2020; Close of fact discovery: 6/8/2020; Filing of Dispositive Motions: 7/10/2020; Filing of Oppositions to Dispositive Motions: 8/4/2020; Filing of Replies to Dispositive Motions: 8/11/2020; Hearing on dispositive motions: 8/25/2020 at 1:30 p.m.; Close of Expert Discovery: 8/30/2020. (Kastilahn, A)

1

5

MICHAEL J. HADDAD (State Bar No. 189114)
JULIA SHERWIN (State Bar No. 189268)
TERESA ALLEN (State Bar No. 264865)
HADDAD & SHERWIN LLP
505 Seventeenth Street
Oakland, California 94612
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

6

Attorneys for Plaintiff I.F.

2
3
4

7

12

JOHN L. BURRIS, Esq., SBN 69888
ADANTE D. POINTER, Esq., SBN 236229
PATRICK M. BUELNA, Esq., SBN 317043
LAW OFFICES OF JOHN L. BURRIS
Airport Corporate Center
7677 Oakport St., Suite 1120
Oakland, CA 94621
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

13

Attorneys for Plaintiffs R.F., Paula McGowan, and Ronell Foster Sr.

8
9
10
11

14
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

15

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

16
17
18
19
20

I.F., by and through her guardian ad litem SHASTA
SKINNER, individually and as successor-in-interest to
Decedent RONELL FOSTER; R.F., by and through his
guardian ad litem SHENA BATTEN, individually and
as successor-in-interest to Decedent RONELL
FOSTER; PAULA MCGOWAN, individually; and
RONELL FOSTER, SR., individually.

21

Plaintiffs,

22

vs.

23

CITY OF VALLEJO, a municipal corporation; RYAN
MCMAHON, individually and in his official capacity as
a Police Officer for the CITY OF VALLEJO; and
DOES 1-50, inclusive.

24
25
26

Defendants.

)
) No: 2:18-cv-00673-JAM-CKD
)
)
) STIPULATION AND ORDER
) TO ADJUST CERTAIN
) PRETRIAL DATES; TRIAL
) DATE UNAFFECTED
)
) (AS MODIFIED BY THE COURT)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

27
28
No: 2:18-cv-00673-JAM-CKD STIPULATION AND (PROPOSED) ORDER TO ADJUST CERTAIN PRETRIAL DATES;
TRIAL DATE UNAFFECTED

1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

TO THE HONORABLE COURT:

On October 9, 2019, this Court entered an order staying discovery of this case as to
Defendant Officer Ryan McMahon while the District Attorney for the County of Solano
investigated the underlying case to determine whether to bring criminal charges. That investigation
was completed as of Friday, January 31, 2020, with the District Attorney deciding not to prosecute
Defendant Officer McMahon. Counsel for the City notified all parties on Monday, February 3,
2020, regarding the District Attorney’s decision. This court last addressed the pretrial dates in this
case in its order dated February 11, 2020 (Doc. 40). Since that time, in addition to exchange of
documents, the parties have completed the depositions of Defendant McMahon, several percipient
officer-witnesses, some command staff, and all adult Plaintiffs.
On March 18, 2020, all Defendants associated in new defense counsel, Dale L. Allen, Jr.,
from Allen, Glaessner, Hazelwood & Werth, LLP. Mr. Allen and Plaintiffs’ counsel met
telephonically shortly thereafter to confer about outstanding discovery and case dates and
deadlines. The parties informally agreed that due to defense counsel’s recent appearance in the
case, it would be appropriate to seek continuance of certain pretrial dates to allow new counsel to
get up to speed. Then, on April 9, 2020, attorney Bruce A. Kilday, from Angelo, Kilday & Kilduff,
LLP, informed the parties that he would be substituting in as counsel for Defendant Officer
McMahon. The parties began to meet and confer again concerning case dates to try to
accommodate the scheduling needs of Mr. Kilday and his soon-to-be client, Officer McMahon.
Mr. Kilday filed his appearance in this matter on Friday, April 24, 2020.
At this time, discovery is mostly complete, however, due to the changes in counsel and the
COVID-19 restrictions, the parties had to repeatedly reschedule the depositions of four members of
the Vallejo Police Department (VPD) command staff and a VPD Rule 30(b)(6) witness. Those
depositions were completed on April 27, 2020, by video-conference. Plaintiffs represent that those
depositions were necessary for Plaintiffs’ claims, including a Monell claim, and necessary for their
experts to review before expert disclosures could be completed. Anticipating that this stipulation

28
No: 2:18-cv-00673-JAM-CKD STIPULATION AND (PROPOSED) ORDER TO ADJUST CERTAIN PRETRIAL DATES;
TRIAL DATE UNAFFECTED

2

1

would have been filed before Mr. Kilday announced his impending entry to this case, the parties

2

had informally agreed that expert reports would be exchanged two weeks after those four VPD

3

depositions were completed. Additionally, due to the fact that certain administrative investigations

4

by the Vallejo Police Department concerning this shooting are still ongoing, Defendants agree that

5

Plaintiffs may take the previously noticed Rule 30(b)(6) deposition concerning those

6

investigations, subject to any objections by Defendants, when the investigations are complete,

7

which Defendants anticipate will be complete within sixty days. Despite significant difficulties

8

caused by the COVID-19 restrictions, all counsel have been working cooperatively to try to

9

conduct necessary discovery and avoid unnecessary conflicts.

10

Also due to COVID-19 and public health hazards, Plaintiffs’ expert forensic pathologist,

11

Dr. Bennett Omalu, has been unable to do examination of Decedent’s tissue and biological material

12

at the Solano County Coroner’s Officer that had been stipulated and ordered to take place at a

13

mutually convenient date and time. (Doc. 42). It is unclear when he will be able to do that

14

necessary work with the decedent’s blood, tissue, and biological matter. Dr. Omalu’s work at the

15

Coroner’s Office is necessary before he can draft his Rule 26 report. However, the parties have

16

agreed that Dr. Omalu may submit his Rule 26 disclosures within two weeks of when he completes

17

his examination at the Coroner’s Office.

18
19
20

The parties also agree that it is not necessary to have completed expert discovery in order to
brief Defendant(s)’ anticipated motion(s) for summary judgment.
The parties have also agreed to participate in a settlement conference, and in a separate

21

stipulation and order, Northern District Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler will conduct the settlement

22

conference on July 21, 2020. (Doc. 46).

23

Finally, the parties respectfully request that this court preserve, if possible, the current dates

24

for trial and pretrial conference. The parties believe that the proposed schedule below addresses

25

the unique necessities of this case, of original and recently-joined counsel, and complications

26

caused by COVID-19, while changing dates as little as possible and preserving the trial and pretrial

27

conference dates.

28
No: 2:18-cv-00673-JAM-CKD STIPULATION AND (PROPOSED) ORDER TO ADJUST CERTAIN PRETRIAL DATES;
TRIAL DATE UNAFFECTED

3

1
2

Given the above, the parties respectfully request that, subject to the Court’s calendar, the
Court modify the case management for this matter as follows:

3
4

Current Date

Proposed Date

1. Expert disclosures

April 8, 2020

2. Rebuttal expert
disclosures
3. Joint Statement
summarizing all
law and motion
4. Close of fact
discovery
5. Filing of
Dispositive
Motions
6. Filing of
Oppositions to
Dispositive
Motions
7. Filing of Replies to
Dispositive
Motions
8. Hearing on
dispositive motions
9. Close of Expert
Discovery
10. Pretrial conference

April 22, 2020

May 11, 2020* (except for
expert Bennett Omalu, M.D.,
whose Rule 26 disclosure will
be due 14 days after he
completes his previously
ordered work at the Coroner’s
Office)
June 8, 2020

May 11, 2020

May 26, 2020

June 1, 2020

June 8, 2020

June 26, 2020

July 10, 2020

Per court rules

August 4, 2020

Per court rules

August 11, 2020

July 28, 2020

August 25, 2020 at 1:30 p.m.

June 1, 2020

August 30, 2020

October 16, 2020

UNCHANGED

11. Trial

5

Case Event

December 2020

UNCHANGED

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

No: 2:18-cv-00673-JAM-CKD STIPULATION AND (PROPOSED) ORDER TO ADJUST CERTAIN PRETRIAL DATES;
TRIAL DATE UNAFFECTED

4

1

So Stipulated.

2

DATED: May 8, 2020

3

HADDAD & SHERWIN LLP
/s/ Michael J. Haddad
MICHAEL J. HADDAD
Attorneys for Plaintiff I.F.

4
5
6
7

DATED: May 8, 2020

8

ALLEN, GLAESSNER, HAZELWOOD &
WERTH, LLP
__/s/ Dale L. Allen, Jr.__________
DALE L. ALLEN, JR.
Attorneys for Defendant City of Vallejo

9
10
11

DATED: May 8, 2020

12

ANGELO, KILDAY & KILDUFF
__/s/ Bruce A. Kilday__________
BRUCE A. KILDAY
Attorneys for Defendant Ryan McMahon

13
14
15
16

DATED: May 8, 2020

LAW OFFICES OF JOHN L. BURRIS

17
18
19
20

/s/ Adante D. Pointer
ADANTE D. POINTER
PATRICK BUELNA
Attorney for Plaintiffs, R.F., et al.

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
No: 2:18-cv-00673-JAM-CKD STIPULATION AND (PROPOSED) ORDER TO ADJUST CERTAIN PRETRIAL DATES;
TRIAL DATE UNAFFECTED

5

1
2
3

ORDER (AS MODIFIED BY THE COURT)
Based on the parties’ stipulation, and with good cause appearing therefore,
IT IS SO ORDERED.

4
5
6
7

DATED: May 8, 2020

/s/ John A. Mendez_______
Hon. John A. Mendez
U. S. District Court Judge

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
No: 2:18-cv-00673-JAM-CKD STIPULATION AND (PROPOSED) ORDER TO ADJUST CERTAIN PRETRIAL DATES;
TRIAL DATE UNAFFECTED

6