Sessoms v. Thornton et al
Filing
102
ORDER GRANTING 101 STIPULATION TO EXTEND SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND CASE MANAGEMENT HEARING DATES AND FILING DEADLINES.(whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/11/2015)
1
6
IVOR SAMSON (State Bar No. 52767)
ivor.samson@dentons.com
BONNIE LAU (State Bar No. 246188)
bonnie.lau@dentons.com
JESSICA L. DUGGAN (State Bar No. 271703)
jessica.duggan@dentons.com
DENTONS US LLP
525 Market Street, 26th Floor
San Francisco, California 94105-2708
Telephone:
(415) 882-5000
Facsimile:
(415) 882-0300
7
Attorneys for Plaintiff TIO DINERO SESSOMS
8
13
KAMALA D. HARRIS
Attorney General of California
JOHN P. DEVINE
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
SUSAN J. KAWALA (State Bar No. 178612)
Susan.Kawala@doj.ca.gov
Deputy Attorney General
455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000
San Francisco, CA 94102-7004
Telephone:
(415) 703-5708
Facsimile:
(415) 703-5480
14
Attorneys for Defendant DARRIN BRIGHT
2
3
4
5
DENTONS US LLP
525 MARKET STREET , 26TH FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO , CALIFORNIA 94105-2708
(415) 882-5000
9
10
11
12
15
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
16
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
17
18
TIO DINERO SESSOMS,
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case No. CV 13-0714 WHA (PR)
Plaintiff,
v.
R.N. HELEN THORNTON; R.N. FRANCES
SSEMPEBWA; DR. EDWARD BIRDSONG;
DR. KUMAR; DR. POMPAN; DR. JOHN
DOWBAK; DR. ELIZABETH B.
SCHNEIDER; DR. T.W. WY; DR. BRIGHT;
DR. A. ADAMS; G. ELLIS; RANDY
GROUNDS,
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER TO EXTEND SUMMARY
JUDGMENT AND CASE
MANAGEMENT HEARING DATES
AND FILING DEADLINES
Defendants.
26
27
28
CASE NO. CV13-00714 WHA (PR)
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
TO EXTEND SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND
CASE MANAGEMENT DEADLINES
1
STIPULATION
2
Plaintiff Tio Dinero Sessoms and Defendant Darrin Bright, by and through their
3
undersigned counsel, respectfully request that the Court enter the following stipulation pursuant
4
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b) and Civil Local Rule 6-2 for a brief extension of (1) the
5
opposition and reply brief deadlines and hearing date for Defendant’s motion for summary
6
judgment; and (2) the case management statement deadline and case management conference.
7
In support of this stipulation, the undersigned parties provide the following facts:
8
1.
DENTONS US LLP
525 MARKET STREET , 26TH FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO , CALIFORNIA 94105-2708
(415) 882-5000
9
On May 5, 2015, this Court issued an order setting Defendants’ deadline to file a
supplemental motion for summary judgment on June 4, 2015. Due to the withdrawal of
10
Plaintiff’s former pro bono counsel, the Court referred the case to the Federal Pro Bono Project
11
and granted Plaintiff a four-week extension of the deadline to respond. The order also stated that
12
the Court “would also consider a reasonable motion to extend or to continue deadlines (where
13
good cause is shown) brought by new appointed pro bono counsel.” (Dkt. 91.)
14
2.
On June 1, 2015, the Court appointed Ivor Samson, Bonnie Lau and Jessica
15
Duggan, all of Dentons US LLP, as pro bono counsel for Plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
16
1915(e)(1) and the Court’s Federal Pro Bono Project guidelines. The Court set a briefing
17
schedule on Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, ordered the parties to file a joint case
18
management statement pursuant to Civil Local Rule 16-9 and also scheduled a case management
19
conference. (Dkt. 96.)
20
21
22
3.
Defendant Bright filed a “Supplemental Motion for Summary Judgment” on
June 4, 2015. (Dkt. 98.)
4.
Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, this Court granted a brief extension of the
23
summary judgment and case management deadlines as follows: Plaintiff’s opposition brief due on
24
August 17, 2015; Defendant’s reply brief due on August 24, 2015; case management statement
25
due on September 3, 2015; and case management conference and hearing on Defendant Bright’s
26
Supplemental Motion for Summary Judgment to be held on September 10, 2015. (Dkt. 99.)
27
28
CASE NO. CV13-00714 WHA (PR)
-1-
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
TO EXTEND SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND
CASE MANAGEMENT DEADLINES
1
5.
Since being appointed as Pro Bono Counsel, Plaintiff’s counsel has been
2
diligently investigating the facts, including by propounding discovery requests and deposing
3
Defendant Bright last week, on July 29, 2015. A dispute has arisen between the parties regarding
4
Dr. Bright’s refusal to answer certain deposition questions, which may require motion practice.
5
Defendant’s position: During the deposition, counsel for Defendant Bright
asserted objections to certain questions based on her assertions that the questions
7
were manifestly irrelevant or were attempting to illicit improper expert testimony
8
from a percipient witness, and instructed Defendant Bright not to answer those
9
DENTONS US LLP
525 MARKET STREET , 26TH FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO , CALIFORNIA 94105-2708
(415) 882-5000
6
questions. Defense counsel does not believe the questions are relevant, let alone
10
11
critical, to any issues presently before the Court.
Plaintiff’s position: Plaintiff’s deposition questions directly relate to Defendant
12
Bright’s rationale for denying Plaintiff an MRI and are therefore critical to
13
Plaintiff’s opposition to the Supplemental Motion for Summary Judgment.
14
Plaintiff’s questions, which Defendant Bright refused to answer, regarding
15
Defendant’s understanding of Plaintiff’s history of his knee condition, the
16
circumstances in which a person would or would not receive an MRI for a
17
suspected torn meniscus and his understanding of the prison policies and
18
procedures are directly relevant to Defendant Bright’s decision to deny Plaintiff’s
19
MRI. In addition, Defendant’s counsel improperly instructed Defendant Bright
20
not to answer certain questions because they purportedly elicited “expert
21
testimony,” even though Defendant has admittedly previously relied on Defendant
22
Bright’s expert opinion regarding Plaintiff’s medical care. Plaintiff’s counsel has
23
prepared a motion to compel responses to those questions.
24
25
The parties are currently in the process of meeting and conferring to potentially
resolve this discovery dispute without motion practice.
26
27
28
CASE NO. CV13-00714 WHA (PR)
-2-
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
TO EXTEND SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND
CASE MANAGEMENT DEADLINES
1
6.
In addition, on the day of his deposition, Defendant Bright provided two additional
2
InterQual printouts documenting additional bases for Defendant Bright’s denial of the MRI, the
3
fundamental issue in this case. Plaintiff’s counsel promptly requested production of all InterQual
4
records pertaining to Plaintiff, which have not yet been produced by Defendant.
5
Plaintiff’s Position: Defendant Bright has testified that the InterQual records
form the basis for his denial of Plaintiff’s MRI; accordingly, the other InterQual
7
records relating to Plaintiff may be equally relevant to the denial of the MRI and to
8
resolution of the pending summary judgment motion. Plaintiff’s document request
9
DENTONS US LLP
525 MARKET STREET , 26TH FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO , CALIFORNIA 94105-2708
(415) 882-5000
6
is neither overbroad nor irrelevant, given that the InterQual criteria is now the
10
claimed lynchpin of Defendant’s entire defense, and there is no question that the
11
request is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
12
Defendant’s Position: Defendant’s counsel is currently working on producing
13
relevant documents responsive to Plaintiff’s request, with the understanding that
14
counsel may object to this request as being overbroad and manifestly irrelevant if
15
the documents pertain to conditions unrelated to the one issue remaining in this
16
case after the initial summary judgment motion: whether Dr. Bright was
17
deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s medical needs when Dr. Bright denied an
18
MRI of Plaintiff’s right knee because it did not meet the criteria to be considered
19
medically necessary as set forth in Title 15 and InterQual.
20
7.
The parties are currently diligently working together to resolve their discovery
21
disputes regarding testimony and documents that go to the heart of the pending summary
22
judgment motion. Resolving these issues necessitate a brief continuance of the summary
23
judgment deadlines to accommodate the additional discovery and a potential motion to compel.
24
Good cause therefore exists to extend the opposition and reply deadlines and hearing date for
25
Defendant Bright’s Supplemental Motion for Summary Judgment, as well as the case
26
management statement deadline and case management conference.
27
28
CASE NO. CV13-00714 WHA (PR)
-3-
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
TO EXTEND SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND
CASE MANAGEMENT DEADLINES
1
In light of the above facts, the parties jointly request that the Court briefly extend the
2
summary judgment and case management deadlines, and enter the following stipulation as an
3
Order of the Court:
4
A.
Plaintiff shall file his opposition brief by October 19, 2015.
5
B.
Defendant shall file his reply brief by October 26, 2015.
6
C.
The hearing on Defendant Bright’s Supplemental Motion for Summary Judgment
7
shall be on November 19, 2015 at 8:00 a.m.
D.
The case management conference shall be on November 19, 2015 at 8:00 a.m.
9
DENTONS US LLP
525 MARKET STREET , 26TH FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO , CALIFORNIA 94105-2708
(415) 882-5000
8
E.
The parties shall file a joint case management statement no later than November
10
12, 2015.
11
Dated: August 7, 2015
12
Respectfully submitted,
DENTONS US LLP
13
14
BY:
15
/s/ Bonnie Lau
Bonnie Lau
Attorneys for Plaintiff
TIO DINERO SESSOMS
16
17
18
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
19
20
BY:
21
/s/ Susan J. Kawala
Susan J. Kawala
Attorneys for Defendant
DARREN BRIGHT
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CASE NO. CV13-00714 WHA (PR)
-4-
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
TO EXTEND SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND
CASE MANAGEMENT DEADLINES
1
PROPOSED ORDER
2
Pursuant to Stipulation and for good cause shown,
3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
4
5
Dated: August 11, 2015.
6
BY:
Hon. William Alsup
United States District Judge
7
8
DENTONS US LLP
525 MARKET STREET , 26TH FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO , CALIFORNIA 94105-2708
(415) 882-5000
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CASE NO. CV13-00714 WHA (PR)
-5-
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
TO EXTEND SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND
CASE MANAGEMENT DEADLINES
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?