Yount -v- City and County of San Francisco

Filing 22

ORDER RE: STATUS. Motions due by 4/15/2013.. Signed by Judge Maria-Elena James on 9/21/2012. (cdnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/21/2012)

Download PDF
ER H 7 8 FO aria Judge M R NIA S RT 6 ames -Elena J NO 5 LI 4 TED GRAN A 3 S DISTRICT TE C TA RT U O 2 DENNIS J. HERRERA, State Bar #139669 City Attorney CHERYL ADAMS, State Bar #164194 Chief Trial Attorney LEILA K. MONGAN, State Bar #271287 Deputy City Attorney Fox Plaza 1390 Market Street, Sixth Floor San Francisco, California 94102-5408 Telephone: (415) 554-3915 Facsimile: (415) 554-3837 E-Mail: leila.mongan@sfgov.org UNIT ED 1 N Attorneys for Defendant CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO F D IS T IC T O R C 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 13 KATHY YOUNT, ESTATE OF DYLAN YOUNT, Case No. CV-11-1141 MEJ JOINT STATUS REPORT 14 Plaintiff, 15 vs. Trial Date: 16 17 Not Set CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, SAN FRANCISCO POLICE DEPARTMENT, SAN FRANCISCO FIRE DEPARTMENT, DOES 1-5, Inclusive, 18 Defendants. 19 20 21 22 Pursuant to the Court's September 7, 2012 Order, the parties submit the following joint status report. This Joint Status Report is submitted jointly with notations where divergent positions exist. 23 24 25 26 1. Introduction Jointly: In this civil rights Monell action, the parties agreed to a limited exchange of discovery in advance of Defendant's early summary judgment motion. 27 28 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT Yount v. CCSF, et al.; Case No. CV-11-1141 MEJ 1 n:\lit\li2012\111077\00798571.doc 1 Plaintiffs: The parties have not completed written discovery and depositions. Plaintiffs intend 2 depose up to three more percipient witnesses. After said deposition, counsel will meet and confer 3 within 30 days regarding whether it is necessary to conduct depositions of Persons Most 4 Knowledgeable (PMKs) from the City; Plaintiffs anticipate this will be necessary. 5 6 Defendant: Defendant has completed its initial discovery. According to the June 14, 2011 7 Case Management Statement, Plaintiffs may take up to three additional percipient witness depositions 8 and may then confer with Defendant about whether PMK depositions are appropriate. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2. Nature of Action Jointly: This action involves claims by Plaintiffs Kathy Yount and the Estate of Dylan Yount against the City and County of San Francisco. Plaintiffs make federal and state law claims against the City regarding its response to Dylan Yount's suicide by jumping off a building in downtown San Francisco. 3. Status of Discovery Plaintiffs: In their Joint Case Management Statement filed on June 14, 2011, the parties agreed to a mutual, limited exchange of discovery in advance of defendant's anticipated motion for summary judgment to include the production of documents. Plaintiff's position is that defendant has been less than forthright during discovery (Docket No. 17, 18, 19). Plaintiff has the right to conclude the depositions and discovery. Defendant: In their Joint Case Management Statement filed on June 14, 2011, the parties agreed to a mutual, limited exchange of discovery in advance of defendant's anticipated motion for summary judgment. See Docket No. 9. Specifically, the parties agreed that Defendant would produce documents and take the deposition of one witness named Roberto "Beto/Mooncricket" Lopez; that Plaintiffs would depose up to six percipient witnesses; and that the parties would then meet and confer regarding whether it is necessary to take depositions of persons most knowledgeable ("PMKs") from the City. See id. at 3-4. 27 28 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT Yount v. CCSF, et al.; Case No. CV-11-1141 MEJ 2 n:\lit\li2012\111077\00798571.doc Defendant disputes Plaintiffs' statement that Defendants have not been forthright in discovery. 1 2 Upon each of Plaintiffs' requests, Defendant has promptly produced documents, served written 3 discovery responses and produced City employees for deposition. 4 Jointly: The status of this discovery is as follows: 5 • Defendant took the deposition of Roberto Lopez on October 18, 2011. 6 • Defendant produced documents to Plaintiffs on June 23, 2011 and, in response to 7 Plaintiffs' discovery requests, served additional responses and produced additional 8 documents on January 31, 2012 and March 26, 2012. • 9 Plaintiffs took the depositions of the following percipient witnesses: Officer Cesar 10 Perez on May 17, 2012; Lieutenant Arthur Borges on May 31, 2012; and Officer Craig 11 Canton on September 19, 2012. The parties expect to complete any remaining discovery in advance of Defendant's initial 12 13 summary judgment motion as set forth in the proposed schedule below. 14 4. 15 Scheduling Jointly: The parties propose that the Court refrain from setting a trial date in light of 16 Defendant's anticipated motion for summary judgment. The parties do request that the Court set 17 deadlines relating to the completion of the initial discovery and Defendant's summary judgment 18 motion. Specifically, the parties have agreed to and request that the Court enter the following 19 deadlines: 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Deadline for Plaintiffs to complete up to three additional percipient witness depositions contemplated by the parties' June 14, 2011 Joint Case Management Statement: Deadline for parties to meet and confer about PMK depositions: Deadline for Plaintiffs to complete PMK depositions, if any, and to complete any additional written discovery: Deadline for Defendant to file initial motion for summary judgment: December 12, 2012 January 15, 2013 February 15, 2013 April 15, 2013 28 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT Yount v. CCSF, et al.; Case No. CV-11-1141 MEJ 3 n:\lit\li2012\111077\00798571.doc 1 Dated: September 20, 2012 2 3 4 5 DENNIS J. HERRERA City Attorney CHERYL ADAMS Chief Trial Deputy DONALD P. MARGOLIS LEILA K. MONGAN Deputy City Attorneys By: Leila K. Mongan LEILA K. MONGAN Attorneys for Defendant CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 6 7 8 9 10 Dated: September 20, 2012 WALSTON CROSS, P.C. By: Orestes A. Cross* Orestes A. Cross, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiffs KATHY YOUNT AND ESTATE OF DYLAN YOUNT 11 12 13 *Pursuant to GO 45, the electronic signatory has obtained approval from this signatory. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT Yount v. CCSF, et al.; Case No. CV-11-1141 MEJ 4 n:\lit\li2012\111077\00798571.doc

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?