Henne et al v. County of San Joaquin et al

Filing 18

STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Chief District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 3/10/2025 MODIFYING The Pretrial Scheduling Order as follows: Cutoff of Non- Expert Discovery 3/27/2026. Expert disclosures/ Expert WitnessDesignations 5/26/2026. Rebuttal expert disclosures: 6/25/2026. Supplemental disclosures 8/24/2026. Dispositive Motions filing cut-off date 9/23/2026. (Deputy Clerk LMS)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

Sanjay S. Schmidt (SBN 247475)
LAW OFFICE OF SANJAY S. SCHMIDT
1388 Sutter Street, Suite 810
San Francisco, CA 94109
T: [phone]
F: [phone]
e-mail: [e-mail]

Grace Jun (SBN 287973)
GRACE JUN, ATTORNEY AT LAW
501 West Broadway, Ste. 1480
San Diego, CA 92101
T: [phone]
e-mail: [e-mail]

Panos Lagos (SBN 61821)
LAW OFFICES OF PANOS LAGOS
6569 Glen Oaks Way
Oakland, CA 94611
T: [phone] Ext. 101
F: [phone]
e-mail: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

14
15
16
17
18
19
20

WILLIAM HENNE, Decedent, by and through
his successors in interest; F.H., a minor, by and
through her proposed guardian ad litem, Reatana
Ven, individually and as co-successor in interest
to Decedent; W.A.H., a minor, by and through his
proposed guardian ad litem, Alexis Celeste,
individually and as co-successor in interest to
Decedent; W.R.H., a minor, by and through his
proposed guardian ad litem, Alexis Celeste,
individually and as co-successor in interest to
Decedent,

21

Plaintiffs,
vs.

22
23
24

COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN, a public entity, et
al.,
Defendants.

25
26
27

///

28

///

) Case No. 2:24-CV-02275-TLN-AC
)
) [Assigned to the Honorable U.S. District
) Judge Troy L. Nunley – Courtroom 2]
)
) FIRST STIPULATION AND ORDER
) TO MODIFY INITIAL PRETRIAL
) SCHEDULING ORDER
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Stipulation and Order to Modify Scheduling Order
Henne, et al. v. County of San Joaquin, et al.
USDC (E.D. Cal.) Case No.: 2:24-CV-02275-TLN-AC

-1-

1
2

Plaintiffs and Defendants (“the parties”), all through their undersigned counsel of record,
and subject to the approval of the Court, respectfully stipulate as follows:

3

RECITALS

4
5

On August 20, 2024, Plaintiffs filed this civil-rights, wrongful death, and survival

B.

On August 21, 2024, the Court issued its Initial Pretrial Scheduling Order (the

action.

6
7

A.

“Scheduling Order”). ECF No. 3.

8

C.

On September 9, 2024, the Court granted the previously filed application of Retana

9
10

Ven to be appointed the guardian ad litem for minor Plaintiff F.H. ECF No. 10.
D.

11
12
13

Celeste to be appointed the guardian ad litem for minor Plaintiffs W.A.H. and W.R.H. ECF No.
11.

14
15
16
17
18

On September 9, 2024, the Court granted the previously filed applications of Alexis

E.

On October 10, 2024, a Waiver of Service was filed as to all Defendants. ECF No.

F.

On November 27, 2024, the County of San Joaquin Defendants filed an Answer to

12.

Plaintiffs’ Complaint. ECF No. 14.
G.

The parties have met and conferred regarding the Scheduling Order, and the parties

19

believe certain dates in it will not give the parties sufficient time to investigate the issues in the

20

case, conduct discovery, and prepare for trial.

21

H.

The undersigned counsel for Plaintiffs are in the midst of conducting extensive

22

discovery in a number of other complex, in-custody death cases, and two of the undersigned co-

23

counsel for Plaintiffs have separate jury trials commencing on April 21 in such matters, both of

24
25
26
27
28

which will progressively consume substantial time through and including April 21 – May 2,
following which several weeks are blocked off for depositions of fact witnesses and expert
witnesses in other matters. Counsel for Plaintiffs have highly impacted schedules for the next 8-9
months.
I.

The parties, nevertheless, have exchanged initial Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures and

Stipulation and Order to Modify Scheduling Order
Henne, et al. v. County of San Joaquin, et al.
USDC (E.D. Cal.) Case No.: 2:24-CV-02275-TLN-AC

-2-

1

Plaintiff has served Requests for Production.

2

J.

Given the press of business, other trials, and matters that counsel have scheduled,

3

the anticipated time the parties will require to respond to discovery requests and marshal the

4

documents that will be requested, the time required to meet and confer on discovery in an effort to

5
6
7
8

avoid potential discovery motions, the time required for the parties to prepare a stipulated
protective order governing the production of sensitive or confidential materials or information, the
large number of depositions that may have to be taken, as well as the desire of counsel for the
parties to be able to exercise professional courtesy by reasonably accommodating the schedules of

9
10
11
12
13

the deponents and counsel as much as possible, granting reasonable extensions, and the need to set
depositions on mutually available dates, including the anticipated difficulties with doing this (in
view of the number of schedules and potential depositions involved), the undersigned counsel
reasonably estimate the need for, and, thus, respectfully request, that an additional 120 days be

14

added to the deadline for the completion of discovery, as set forth in Section III of the Initial

15

Pretrial Scheduling Order. (ECF No. 3 at 2:15-23.) All successive deadlines in the Pretrial

16

Scheduling Order would be correspondingly extended, with spacing between such dates to remain

17

the same as is set forth in the Pretrial Scheduling Order.
K.

18
19

The parties, therefore, respectfully request additional time to complete these items

in the Scheduling Order.
L.

20

When an act must be done within a specified time, the Court may, for good cause,

21

extend the time with or without motion if the court acts, or a request is made, before the original

22

time expires. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A). With respect to an order setting forth the Court’s pretrial

23

schedule, “[t]he district court may modify the pretrial schedule ‘if it cannot be reasonably met

24
25

despite the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.’” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations,
Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992).

26
27
28

M. There have been no prior modifications of the Scheduling Order.
//
//
Stipulation and Order to Modify Scheduling Order
Henne, et al. v. County of San Joaquin, et al.
USDC (E.D. Cal.) Case No.: 2:24-CV-02275-TLN-AC

-3-

1

STIPULATION

2

The parties, by and through their undersigned counsel, respectfully request that the Court

3

modify the Scheduling Order as follows:

4

Case Event

5
6
7
8
9
10

Cutoff of Non-Expert
Discovery
Expert disclosures/ Expert
Witness Designations
Rebuttal expert disclosures
Supplemental disclosures
(FRCP 26(e))
Dispositive motion filing cutoff date

Current Deadline
(ECF No. 3)
11/27/2025

Proposed Amended
Deadline
03/27/2026

1/26/2026

05/26/2026

2/25/2026
04/24/2026

06/25/2026
08/24/2026

05/26/2026

09/23/2026

11

Based on the foregoing, the parties respectfully request that the Court grant this stipulation

12
13

for a modification of the Scheduling Order.
Respectfully Submitted,

14
15
16

Dated: March 10, 2025
SCHMIDT,

GRACE JUN, ATTORNEY AT LAW, and
LAW OFFICES OF PANOS LAGOS

17
18

/s/ Sanjay S. Schmidt
By: SANJAY S. SCHMIDT
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

19
20
21

LAW OFFICE OF SANJAY S.

Dated: March 10, 2025
LLP

BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN,

22

/s/ Kyle Anne Piasecki *
By: Kyle Anne Piasecki
Gregory B. Thomas
Kyle Anne Piasecki
Jackson D. Morgus
Attorneys for Defendants

23
24
25
26
27
28

*Pursuant to Local Rule 131(e), counsel has authorized submission of this document on counsel’s
behalf.
Stipulation and Order to Modify Scheduling Order
Henne, et al. v. County of San Joaquin, et al.
USDC (E.D. Cal.) Case No.: 2:24-CV-02275-TLN-AC

-4-

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

ORDER
The Court, having considered the parties’ stipulation, and good cause appearing, rules as
follows:
The Court finds the parties have shown good cause for the relief their Stipulation requests.
THEREFORE, the relief the parties request is GRANTED, and the scheduling order is
modified as follows:
Case Event
Cutoff of Non-Expert Discovery
Expert disclosures/ Expert Witness
Designations
Rebuttal expert disclosures
Supplemental disclosures (FRCP 26(e))
Dispositive motion filing cut-off date

New Deadline
03/27/2026
05/26/2026
06/25/2026
08/24/2026
09/23/2026

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
15
16
17
18

Dated: March 10, 2025

____________________________
Troy L. Nunley
Chief United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Stipulation and Order to Modify Scheduling Order
Henne, et al. v. County of San Joaquin, et al.
USDC (E.D. Cal.) Case No.: 2:24-CV-02275-TLN-AC

-5-