Jimenez et al v. County of Alameda

Filing 74

ORDER granting: 73 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER RESETTING DATE FOR HEARING ON DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT, RESETTING DATES FOR EXPERT DISCLOSURE AND DEPOSITIONS AND SETTING DATES FOR SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING FOR MOTION filed by J. Cesena, et al. Reset Deadlines as to 61 Second MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment or Summary Adjudication. Supplemental Responses due by 7/8/2016. Supplemental Replies due by 7/22/2016. Motion Hearing reset for 8/5/2016 10:00 AM in Courtroom 6, 17th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Charles R. Breyer. Signed by Judge Charles R. Breyer on 4/20/2016. (beS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/22/2016)

1
2
3
4
5

GREGORY J. ROCKWELL, ESQ. (SBN 67305)
[e-mail]
MICHAEL P. BIGGANS, ESQ. (SBN 300175)
[e-mail]
BOORNAZIAN, JENSEN & GARTHE
A Professional Corporation/File #27314
555 12 TH Street, Suite 1800
Oakland, CA 94607
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

6
Attorneys for Defendants
7
8
9
10
11
12

JOHN L. BURRIS, Esq., SBN 69888
BENJAMIN NISENBAUM, Esq., SBN 222173
THE LAW OFFICES OF JOHN L. BURRIS
Airport Corporate Center
7677 Oakport Street, Suite 1120
Oakland, California 94621
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]

13
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
14
15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

16

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, a municipal
)
corporation and DOES 1-50, individually,
)
inclusive;
)
)
)
Defendants.
)
-1LEILANI JIMENEZ, individually, and as
successor-in-interest for Decedent DENNIS
JIMENEZ; J.J., a minor, by and through his
guardian ad litem Leilani Jimenez; D.J., a
minor, by and through her guardian ad litem
Leilani Jimenez, and DENNIS JIMENEZ, Jr.
an individual,

Case No.: C 13-04620 CRB
STIPULATION RESETTING DATE
FOR HEARING ON DEFENDANTS’
MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY
JUDGMENT, RESETTING DATES
FOR EXPERT DISCLOSURE AND
DEPOSITIONS AND SETTING
DATES FOR SUPPLEMENTAL
BRIEFING FOR MOTION AND
ORDER

Stipulation Resetting Date for Hearing Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
and Related Expert and Briefing Dates and Proposed Order
Jimenez v. County of Alameda; USDC-Nor. Dist. Case No. C-13-04620 CRB

1

STIPULATION

2

WHEREAS, Defendants in the above-entitled action originally filed a

3

Motion for Partial Summary Judgment in this action that was originally noticed

4

to be heard by the Court on August 14, 2015 at 10:00 a.m. (Docket #35)

5

WHEREAS, on October 5, 2015, the Court denied defendants’ motion

6

without prejudice in order to give plaintiffs’ counsel an opportunity to take the

7

depositions of two inmate witnesses, whose testimony counsel felt is necessary

8

to permit him to oppose the defendants’ motion. (Docket #54)

9
10

WHEREAS, after completion of additional discovery, Defendants refiled
their motion with a hearing date of February 19, 2016. (Docket #61)

11

WHEREAS, on February 11, 2016, the Court vacated the February 19,

12

2016 hearing date on defendants’ motion and set a Case Management Conference

13

for that date to consider plaintiffs’ counsel’s request for expert disclosure and

14

discovery. (Docket #71)

15

WHEREAS, on February 19, 2016, the Court reset the date of defendants’

16

motion for June 10, 2016 and set deadlines for expert disclosure and discovery.

17

(Docket 72)

18

WHEREAS, defense counsel’s legal assistant has been on an extended

19

personal leave since December 2015, which has caused problems with

20

calendaring and scheduling and made his management of his case load much less

21

efficient and much more time consuming.

22

WHEREAS, shortly after the Court’s February 19, 2016 order was issued,

23

defense counsel’s workload was severely increased by discovery and pleading

24

deadlines in three new case assignments, numerous lay and expert witness

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

-2Stipulation Resetting Date for Hearing Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
and Related Expert and Briefing Dates and Proposed Order
Jimenez v. County of Alameda; USDC-Nor. Dist. Case No. C-13-04620 CRB

1
2
3

depositions in a case set for trial in early April (resolved by settlement on April
8) and preparation of a motion for summary judgment in a complex multi-party
case that was due March 30, 2016.

4

WHEREAS, defense counsel had not retained an expert in this matter

5

prior to the Court’s February 19, 2016 order.

6

numerous attempts to retain a qualified expert who is available to review and

7

consult with counsel on this action, but was unsuccessful until April 6, 2016.

Since that date, he has made

8

WHEREAS, plaintiffs’ counsel, who had retained an expert in this action

9

before the defendants’ motion was originally filed in 2015, has complied with

10

the Court’s order regarding expert disclosure and production of an expert report,

11

but defense counsel is not yet prepared to depose plaintiffs’ expert or to offer

12

and expert report of his own.

13

WHEREAS, both the plaintiffs’ expert and the Defendants’ expert are

14

located outside of the State of California, which will make scheduling of their

15

depositions more difficult.

16

WHEREFORE, counsel hereby stipulate and jointly request that the date

17

for hearing defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment be reset to

18

August 5, 2016 at 10:00 a.m., or such later date that is convenient to the Court’s

19

calendar, and that the following pre-motion deadlines be set:

20

Defendants’ expert disclosure due April 29, 2016;

21

Defendant’s expert report due May 20, 2016;

22

Plaintiffs’ and Defendants’ expert depositions be completed by June 24,

23

2016 based upon cooperative scheduling;
Plaintiffs’ supplemental opposition to Defendants’ motion shall be served

24
25

and filed by July 8, 2016;

26

///

27

///

28

-3Stipulation Resetting Date for Hearing Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
and Related Expert and Briefing Dates and Proposed Order
Jimenez v. County of Alameda; USDC-Nor. Dist. Case No. C-13-04620 CRB

1
2

Defendants’ reply to plaintiffs’ supplemental opposition shall be served
and filed by July 22, 2016.

3
4

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

5
6
LAW OFFICES OF JOHN L. BURRIS
7
8

Dated: April 22, 2016

9

By: /s/ Ben Nisenbaum,
Ben Nisenbaum
Attorney for Plaintiffs

Esq.

10
11
12

Dated: April 14, 2016

13

BOORNAZIAN, JENSEN & GARTHE
By: /s/ Gregory J. Rockwell, Esq.
Gregory J. Rockwell, Esq.
Attorneys for Defendants

14
15
16
17
18

ORDER

19
20
21

PURSUANT TO THE FOREGOING STIPULATION, good cause having been
shown, the date for hearing the Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is
reset to August 5, 2016 at 10:00 a.m., and the parties are ordered to comply with the

22
following pre-motion deadlines:
23
Defendants’ expert disclosure due April 29, 2016;
24
Defendant’s expert report due May 20, 2016;
25
Plaintiffs’ and Defendants’ expert depositions be completed by June 24,
26
2016 based upon cooperative scheduling;
27
28

-4Stipulation Resetting Date for Hearing Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
and Related Expert and Briefing Dates and Proposed Order
Jimenez v. County of Alameda; USDC-Nor. Dist. Case No. C-13-04620 CRB

1
2
3
4

Plaintiffs’ supplemental opposition to Defendants’ motion shall be served
and filed by July 8, 2016;
Defendants’ reply to plaintiffs’ supplemental opposition shall be served and filed by
July 22, 2016.

5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
8

Dated: April 20, 2106

________________________
Honorable Charles R. Breyer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-5Stipulation Resetting Date for Hearing Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
and Related Expert and Briefing Dates and Proposed Order
Jimenez v. County of Alameda; USDC-Nor. Dist. Case No. C-13-04620 CRB