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)

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:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
E-Mail:
[e-mail]

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