Houff et al v. City of Sacramento et al

Filing 58

STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Senior District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 09/25/2024 DIRECTING that the deposition of Andrew Keegans occur by 12/1/2024. Any Discovery Motions must also be brought at that time. All other deadlines shall remain unchanged. (Lopez, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
Carl L. Fessenden, SBN 161494
William E. Camy, SBN 291397
Megan N. Boelter, SBN 340235
2180 Harvard Street, Suite 500
Sacramento, California 95815 c
TEL: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

Attorneys for Defendants
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, JIM SPURGEON and MICHAEL DANIELS
Exempt from Filing Fees Pursuant to Government Code § 6103

11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12
13
14
15
16

CHARLES HOUFF, individually, and as a
successor-in-interest to Decedent AMELIAN
HOUFF; OLIVIA EDWARDS, individually,
and as successor-in-interest to Decedent
AMELIAN HOUFF,
Plaintiff,

17
18

v.

19

CITY OF SACRAMENTO, a municipal
corporation; CITY OF SACRAMENTO
police officer MITCHELL BARRETT, in his
individual and official capacities as an
officer for the CITY OF SACRAMENTO;
CITY OF SACRAMENTO police sergeant
MICHAEL FRAZER, in his individual and
official capacities as an officer for the CITY
OF
SACRAMENTO;
CITY
OF
SACRAMENTO police Lieutenant BRIAN
ELLIS, in his individual and official
capacities as an officer for the CITY OF
SACRAMENTO;
COUNTY
OF
SACRAMENTO, a municipal corporation;
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO Sheriff’s
Sergeant JIM SPURGEON, in his individual
and official capacities as a deputy for the

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

CASE NO. 2:22-CV-01150-MCE-JDP
JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER
REGARDING SCHEDULING ORDER
Complaint Filed: 7/1/2022

1

JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING SCHEDULING ORDER

1
2
3
4
5
6

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO; COUNTY
OF SACRAMENTO Sheriff’s Lieutenant
MICHAEL DANIELS, in his individual and
official capacities as a deputy for the
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO; and DOES
1-50, inclusive, individually, jointly, and
severally,
Defendants.
___________________________________/

7
8

Plaintiffs CHARLES HOUFF and OLIVIA EDWARDS (“Plaintiffs”) and Defendants COUNTY

9

OF SACRAMENTO, JIM SPURGEON, MICHAEL DANIELS, CITY OF SACRAMENTO,

10

MITCHELL BARRET, MICHAEL FRAZER and BRIAN ELLIS (“Defendants”) (Plaintiffs and

11

Defendants collectively referred to as the “parties”), by and through their respective counsels of record,

12

hereby stipulate as follows:

13

1. The parties entered into a Joint Stipulation on June 10, 2024, which was signed by the Court

14

and filed on June 13, 2024. (ECF No. 55.) In the Joint Stipulation, the parties agreed there

15

was good cause to allow Andrew Keegans’ deposition to occur after the close of fact

16

discovery and within a reasonable time after August 29, 2024. 1 Andrew Keegans’

17

deposition was ordered to occur no later than October 1, 2024.

18

2. Defendant County of Sacramento noticed Andrew Keegans’ deposition for a third time to

19

occur on September 3, 2024, which was the first day the parties were available after August

20

29, 2024. Andrew Keegans did not appear.

21

3. On September 4, 2024, Magistrate Judge Peterson’s courtroom deputy informed Defendant

22

County of Sacramento that the earliest hearing date for a Motion to Compel Andrew

23

Keegans’ deposition would be October 3, 2024. On September 16, 2024, Defendant County

24

of Sacramento filed a Motion to Compel Andrew Keegans’ Deposition. The hearing is

25

currently set for October 3, 2024, at 10:00 a.m.

26

4. As such, despite the parties’ best efforts and due diligence, the deposition of Andrew

27
28

The statute of limitations for any felony charges resulting from the subject incident expired on August 29, 2024. The parties
agreed to take Andrew Keegans’ deposition after that date so as not to run into any issues related to the Fifth Amendment to
the United States Constitution.
2

1

JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING SCHEDULING ORDER

1

Keegans will not occur prior to October 1, 2024. Given the above-mentioned circumstances

2

and the pending Motion to Compel, the parties agree that there is good cause to extend the

3

deadline by which to take Andrew Keegans’ deposition to December 1, 2024.

4

5. All other deadlines shall remain unchanged.

5
6

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

7

Dated:

9/24/2024

8
9

PORTER SCOTT
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
By:

10

/s/ Megan N. Boelter
Carl L. Fessenden
William E. Camy
Megan N. Boelter
Attorneys for Defendants COUNTY OF
SACRAMENTO, MICHAEL DANIELS
and JIM SPURGEON

11
12
13
14
15

Date: 9/24/2024

LAW OFFICE OF JOHN L. BURRIS

16
17

By: __/s/ _Benjamin Nisenbaum_____________________

18

John Burris
Benjamin Nisenbaum
James Cook
Attorneys for Plaintiff CHARLES HOUFF

19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Date: 9/24/2024

BRYANT LAW GROUP
By: __/s/ Ian Kelley______________________
Ian Kelley
Paul Alaga
Attorneys for Plaintiff OLIVIA EDWARDS

26
27
28
3
JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING SCHEDULING ORDER

1

Date: 9/24/2024

2

DEAN GAZZO ROISTACHER LLP
By: __/s/ Aleries Lau______________________

3

Mitchell Dean
Lee Roistacher
Aleries Lau
Attorneys for Defendant BRIAN ELLIS

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

Date: 9/24/2024

CITY OF SACRAMENTO
By: _/s/ _Sean D. Richmond_______________________
Sean D. Richmond
Kate D. L. Brosseau
Attorneys for Defendant CITY OF SACRAMENTO,
MITCHELL BARRET and MICHAEL FRAZER

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING SCHEDULING ORDER

1
2
3
4
5

ORDER
The Court, having reviewed and considered the Parties’ foregoing Stipulation, and finding good
cause, hereby Orders as follows:
1. The deposition of Andrew Keegans must occur by December 1, 2024. Any discovery
motions related thereto may also be brought at that time.

6

2. All other deadlines shall remain unchanged.

7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8

DATED: September 25, 2024

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING SCHEDULING ORDER