Means v. City and County of San Francisco, Department of Public Health

Filing 25

STIPULATION AND ORDER DENYING request to continue trial date. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 07/13/10. (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/13/2010)

Means v. City and County of San Francisco, Department of Public Health

Doc. 25

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 28

CURTIS G. OLER, State Bar #63689 LAW OFFICES OF CURTIS G. OLER Post Office Box 15083 San Francisco, CA 94115 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: 415-346-8238 Attorney for Plaintiff, SHERRY LYNN MEANS DENNIS J. HERRERA, State Bar #139669 City Attorney ELIZABETH SALVESON, State Bar #83788 Chief Labor Attorney RUTH M. BOND, State Bar #214582 Deputy City Attorney Fox Plaza 1390 Market Street, Fifth Floor San Francisco, California 94102-5408 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] E-Mail: [e-mail] Attorneys for Defendant CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, ET AL.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SHERRY LYNN MEANS, Plaintiff, vs. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH; and DOES 1 through 25, Defendants. Case No. CV 09-0941TEH STIPULATION AND JOINT REQUEST TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE AND PRETRIAL DEADLINES AND [PROPOSED] ORDER Trial Date: November 2, 2010

STIP TO CONT. TRIAL DATE, CASE NO. 09-0941

n:\labor\li2009\091120\00639991.doc

Dockets.Justia.com

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 28

The parties hereby stipulate and request that the Court continue the trial date in this matter by approximately 34 days, and continue the associated pretrial deadlines accordingly. The parties request that the trial date be continued from November 2, 2010 to December 6, 2010 for the following reasons: Defendant has been unable to complete Plaintiff's deposition because of the parties' scheduling conflicts as well as a delay by Plaintiff in producing documents in response to Defendant's document requests. Defendant took the first portion of Plaintiff's deposition on March 9, 2010, and the parties agreed to schedule another day of deposition as soon as possible after Plaintiff produced documents in response to Defendant's first request for production of documents. Beginning on April 14, 2010, counsel for Defendant Ruth M. Bond was in trial in another matter, Lori Dutra v. City and County of San Francisco, et al., San Francisco Superior Court Case No. CGC-09-484160, which lasted from April 14 to May 26. During that time, she was unavailable to complete Plaintiff's deposition. In early May, Defendant granted Plaintiff an extension of time to respond to its document requests. Following defense counsel's trial in the Dutra matter, the parties agreed to schedule the remainder of Plaintiff's deposition on June 29, 2010. Plaintiff produced documents in response to Defendant's requests on June 15, 2010. At her deposition on June 29, Plaintiff indicated that she had additional documents in her possession that had not been produced. The parties agreed that Defendant could further depose Plaintiff once she produced any additional documents in her possession. On June 30, Plaintiff produced several more documents, including handwritten notes and a settlement agreement relating to certain allegations in the Complaint. These documents relate to material issues in the case and Defendant needs to depose plaintiff on these matters in advance of filing its summary judgment motion, which currently is due on August 9, 2010. Both parties are not available to continue the deposition until August 9, 2010, the same date that dispositive motions are due. The parties have worked diligently to complete discovery in this case. However because of the parties' scheduling conflicts, they need additional time to complete Plaintiff's deposition and file dispositive motions. Moving the trial date from November 2 to December 6, 2010 would give the

STIP TO CONT. TRIAL DATE, CASE NO. 09-0941

1

n:\labor\li2009\091120\00639991.doc

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 28

parties sufficient time to complete discovery, file dispositive motions and, if necessary, prepare for trial. The parties propose the following revised schedule: Discovery cutoff: Dispositive Motions: Motion Hearing: Trial Date: Respectfully submitted: Dated: July 12, 2009 By:___________/s/_____________ CURTIS G. OLER LAW OFFICES OF CURTIS G. OLER Attorney for Plaintiff, SHERRY LYNN MEANS DENNIS J. HERRERA City Attorney ELIZABETH S. SALVESON Chief Labor Attorney RUTH M. BOND Deputy City Attorney By:___________/s/_____________ RUTH M. BOND Attorneys for Defendants CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, ET AL. August 19, 2010 August 30, 2010 October 4, 2010 December 6, 2010

Dated: June 12, 2009

STIP TO CONT. TRIAL DATE, CASE NO. 09-0941

2

n:\labor\li2009\091120\00639991.doc

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

The Court has considered the parties' Stipulation and Joint Request to Continue Trial Date and good cause having been shown, it is SO ORDERED that the new pretrial and trial deadlines are as follows: Discovery cutoff: Dispositive Motions: Motion Hearing: Trial Date: August 19, 2010 August 30, 2010 October 4, 2010 December 6, 2010

13 July ___, 2010

UNIT ED

HON. THELTON E. HENDERSON

S DISTRICT TE C TA __________________________________

RT U O

S

DENIE

D

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
STIP TO CONT. TRIAL DATE, CASE NO. 09-0941

J

ER

N

F D IS T IC T O R

3

n:\labor\li2009\091120\00639991.doc

A

C

LI

FO

elton E udge Th

. Hende

rson

R NIA

NO

RT

H