Bramscum v. San Ramon Police Department et al

Filing 41

STIPULATION AND ORDER EXTENDING CASE MANAGEMENT DEADLINES. Signed by Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler on 11/8/2012. (ls, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/8/2012)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 a. ....l ....l JAMES V. FITZGERALD, III (State Bar No. 55632) NOAH G. BLECHMAN (State Bar No. 197167) McNAMARA, NEY, BEATTY, SLATTERY, BORGES & AMBACHER LLP 1211 Newell Avenue Post Office Box 5288 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 939-5330 Facsimile: (925) 939-0203 Attorneys for Defendants SAN RAMON POLICE DEPARTMENT, CHIEF SCOTT HOLDER, CITY OF SAN RAMON, OFFICER PAUL BURKE, OFFICER JOSEPH NUNN, OFFICER T J REEDER, OFFICER JONATHAN STEPHENS and OFFICER STANLEY SZETO U-l UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT u ill ~ ~ Attorney for Plaintiff JORDAN BRANSCUM 9 ~ ::r: ~ LAW OFFICE OF PANOS LAGOS Panos Lagos, Esq. I 61821 5032 Woodminster Lane Oakland, CA (51 0) 530-4078 (510) 530-4725/FAX panoslagos@aol.com 10 " a- NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ,. <n «: 11 U-l 0 :Lo CUM CUM 12 o(j ifJ ~ "' u o;sco::u; ill«:u"' ... -lr-~ JORDAN EDWARD BRANSCUM, Plaintiff, >-f-<~~ ~«:....l::; U-lUJ«:"' ~>-;so~ ~ ~ Lli~ ...Jo:::>Z 14 • f-< cu :r: ~«:«:~ ~ U-l ill >U-l :z 16 ,...lCU ,_lf-< cu cu 17 - 18 "" z N ~ ~ ~ 19 ~ ~ :z u ~ FURTHER JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT VS. [AND PROPOSED ORDER] 15 ifJOzO >-E-<>P.. Case No. C11-04137 LB 13 20 21 22 23 24 San Ramon Police Department; Scott Holder, in his Official Capacity as Chief of Police of the City of San Ramon Police Department; City of San Ramon; Jonathan Stephens, individually and as an Officer of the City of San Ramon Police Department; Joseph Nunn, individually and as an Officer of the City of San Ramon Police Department; TJ Reeder, individually and as an Officer of the City of San Ramon Police Department; Paul Burke, individually and as an Officer of the City of San Ramon Police Department; Stanley Szeto, individually and as an Officer of the City of San Ramon Police Department; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Date: Time: Ctrm: Judge: November 8, 2012 10:30 a.m. C, 15th Floor (San Francisco) Hon. Laurel Beeler Trial: April 22, 2013 Defendants. 25 26 27 28 The parties in this matter hereby provide the following Further Joint Case Management Conference Statement, as directed by the Court per the Clerk's Notice from November 6, 2012. Both parties respectfully ask the Court for an extension of the current deadlines for expert Case No. Cll-04137 LB- FURTHER JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT 1 witness disclosures and discovery, until after the Court has issued an order on Defendants' 2 impending Motion for Summary Judgment, as follows. 3 A. 4 Based on the Court's current case management schedule, the following schedule is in 5 6 Current Motion and Expert Discovery Schedule place: DATE EVENT 7 December 14, 2012 Expert Disclosures Due 9 December 20, 2012 Hearing on Summary Judgment Motion 10 ~ U-1 Deadline to file Summary Judgment Motion 8 -l "' -l November 15,2012 December 28, 2012 Rebuttal Expert Disclosures Due :c u < co "' "' .,. ::E <n o(! "' <r: u 11 February 8, 2013 Expert Discovery Closes ~0 U-1,... U-1,... 12 March 21, 2013 Pretrial Filings Due CO<r:u"' • ...11-"' ::::>"' 13 April11, 2013 Final Pretrial Conference U-ICil<r:"' 14 April22, 2013 Trial < Vl U-1 0 ~ o;,:~":' >-~-z~ ~<r:....l~ t:>-;,:~ U-1 .. <z~u:.~ -lo:;::>Z 15 t:<r:..::~ 16 The parties jointly and respectfully ask the Court for an extension of the current deadlines 17 for expert witness disclosures and discovery, until after the Court has heard oral argument on 18 Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment ("Motion") and has issued an order on the Motion. 19 The Court's decision on Defendants' Motion has a significant impact on this case as a ruling in 20 favor of Defendants may dispose of this entire case, making the costly process of retention of 21 experts, disclosure of experts and completion of expert depositions perhaps a moot point. As the 22 schedule currently stands, expert retention and disclosure, as well as rebuttal disclosure, are due 23 likely before any ruling from the Court on the Motion, with the hearing on the motion set for 24 December 20th. VlOzO • 1- U-1 :r: >-I->"' < U-1 ,_lU-I ,_ll- co U-1 ;,: ;:... U-1 U-1 z < ~ < ::E < z u ::E z - "' 25 Further, due to the breadth of this Motion, the parties anticipate that a ruling from the 26 Court will take some time, though do not know essentially when such ruling is anticipated. The 27 parties are both in agreement and have a strong interest to conserve significant resources (for 28 expert retention, disclosure and depositions) and would prefer to not incur expenditures and time Case No. Cll-04137 LB- FURTHER JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT 2 1 for expert disclosures and discovery which may be moot if Defendants' Motion is granted in full 2 or in part. 3 As such, the parties ask the Court to extend the deadline for expert disclosures and 4 discovery, as outlined in the proposed new schedule below. The dates for pretrial filings, the final 5 pretrial conference and the trial date will not be affected by the proposed revised schedule, should 6 the Court believe this proposed new schedule, below, is feasible. 7 B. 8 The parties propose this new schedule which will defer expert disclosures and discovery 9 for a period of time pending the outcome of the Motion, if such disclosures and discovery is still 10 necessary after the Court's order on Defendants' Motion, without interfering with the Court's <( 11 pretrial and trial schedule. Lil,.., ~0 12 co-o:u"' 13 November 15, 2012 Deadline to file Summary Judgment Motion 14 December 20, 2012 Hearing on Summary Judgment Motion 15 January 25, 2013 Expert Disclosures Due 16 February 8, 2013 Rebuttal Expert Disclosures Due 17 February 28, 2013 Expert Discovery Closes 18 March 21, 2013 Pretrial Filings Due 19 April 11, 2013 Final Pretrial Conference 20 April22, 2013 Trial c... ....1 ....1 c:: u.J ::r:: u -< co ~ -< ~ [/) u.J 0 'C> .,., "' '¢ "' u c:: Lil,.., o:o;e<!": • ....lf-<"' >-F-<z~ C::-o:....l~ i:><:o;~ -<iw-~ ....lt:<!;:,Z r/lQzO • f-< Lil :r: :>--F-->0... 1-<C-o:Lil 1....l ._lLil u.J ._lf-< co Lil -< :o; u.J z DATE EVENT ;:> "' u.JCil<C"' >- Proposed New Expert Discovery Schedule Lil z N <( c:: -< ~ <( z u ~ 21 22 23 24 25 Should the Court believe the above schedule can be modified to better address these issues, the parties are amenable to such insight and recommendations. The parties can address these issues further at the upcoming Further Case Management Conference. 26 27 28 Case No. Cll-04137 LB- FURTHER JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT 3 1 Dated: November 6, 2012 LAW OFFICES OF PANOS LAGOS 2 By: 3 /s/ Lagos, Panos Panos Lagos Attorney for Plaintiff JORDAN BRANSCUM 4 5 Dated: November 6, 2012 MCNAMARA, NEY, BEATTY, SLATTERY, BORGES & AMBACHER LLP 6 7 c... 8 0::: By: 9 ....l ....l u.l ::c u 10 ill <r: -o ~ < "' .,. "' c<:l "' -< u 11 ~ 0 "-1,.., 12 /s/ Blechman Noah James V. Fitzgerald, III I Noah G. Blechman Attorneys for Defendants SAN RAMON POLICE DEPARTMENT, CHIEF SCOTT HOLDER, CITY OF SAN RAMON, OFFICER PAUL BURKE, OFFICER JOSEPH NUNN, OFFICER T J REEDER, OFFICER JONATHAN STEPHENS and OFFICER STANLEY SZETO Cll u.l 0 0::: o~o::v; ill-<u"' ,....ll-"' 13 ~~-~: 0:::..;.--l~ u.l"'..;"' ~>-~~ OI-l 14 .. <r:z,;~ ....Jo::::Jz CllOzO 15 >-~-<>"- 16 • 1- OI-l :r: ~-<..;~ <r: u.l ill >- u.l z ...J~ ,....lf- w ;::: 17 - - 0:: < ~ < z u ~ Good cause having been shown by the parties, the Court GRANTS the parties' request to extend the deadline for expert disclosures and discovery and ORDERS the following new deadlines as the updated case management schedule . DATE EVENT January 25, 2013 Expert Disclosures Due February 8, 2013 Rebuttal Expert Disclosures Due February 28, 2013 w z Expert Discovery Closes 18 N <r: ORDER OI-l,.., 19 20 21 IT IS SO ORDERED 22 23 Dated: November 8, 2012 By: Hon. Laurel Beeler United States Magistrate Judge 24 25 26 27 28 Case No. Cll-04137 LB- FURTHER JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT 4

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?