Doe No. 59 v. Santa Rosa City Schools

Filing 57

ORDER granting 56 STIPULATION re 23 Pretrial Order to Continue Fact and Expert Discovery Cutoff. Close of Fact Discovery due by 4/10/2017. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 02/13/2017. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/13/2017)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Eugene B. Elliot, State Bar No. 111475 Ethan M. Lowry, State Bar No. 278831 Kate L. Brown, State Bar No. 308134 BERTRAND, FOX, ELLIOT, OSMAN & WENZEL The Waterfront Building 2749 Hyde Street San Francisco, California 94109 Telephone: (415) 353-0999 Facsimile: (415) 353-0990 Email: eelliot@bfesf.com Attorneys for Defendant SANTA ROSA CITY SCHOOLS 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 12 JANE DOE NO. 59, NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Case No. 3:16-cv-01256-WHO 13 Plaintiff, 14 15 16 17 18 STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE FACT AND EXPERT DISCOVERY CUTOFF v. SANTA ROSA CITY SCHOOLS, Defendants. AND RELATED CROSS-ACTION. Hon. William H. Orrick 19 20 21 22 STIPULATION Defendant SANTA ROSA CITY SCHOOLS (the “DISTRICT”) and plaintiff JANE DOE NO. 59 by and through their respective attorneys of record, hereby stipulate as follows: 23 1. 24 August 14, 2017. 25 2. The Court assigned a Fact Discovery cutoff date of February 14, 2017. Trial is set for The Parties were originally assigned a settlement conference date of November 30, 2016 26 with Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James. On November 28, 2016, Magistrate James granted the 27 parties’ request to continue the settlement conference to January 20, 2017 due to the unavailability of 28 persons with settlement authority on behalf of the DISTRICT. On January 19, 2017, Magistrate James 1 30 31 STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE FACT AND EXPERT DISCOVERY CUTOFF USDC Case No.: 3:16-cv-01256-WHO 1 vacated the settlement conference due to concerns regarding protests at the Federal Courthouse. The 2 settlement conference was then re-set for February 9, 2017. The case did not settle at that time, and a 3 further settlement conference has been set for June 12, 2017 with Magistrate James. 4 3. The Parties had intended to minimize the costs and expenses of litigation by engaging in 5 limited discovery before the settlement conference. Because the case did not resolve at the settlement 6 conference, both parties require additional time to complete discovery. 7 4. The DISTRICT intends to conduct the following further discovery: (1) complete the 8 deposition of Mother DOE; (2) depose Father DOE; (3) depose DOE’s school and private counselors; (4) 9 depose further witnesses; (5) conduct a psychological examination of DOE (which plaintiff’s counsel has 10 stipulated to); and (6) propound additional written discovery. 11 DOE intends to conduct the following further discovery: (1) depose Defendant’s District 12 Representative(s) in accordance with Rule 30(b)(6); (2) depose further fact witnesses; (3) review 13 Defendant’s forthcoming responses to Plaintiff’s discovery requests; and (4) conduct potential additional 14 discovery necessitated by forthcoming responses to Plaintiff’s discovery requests. 15 6. The parties therefore respectfully request that the Court extend the Fact Discovery cutoff 16 date 60 days to April 10, 2017. This extension will not affect the trial date or any other dates previously 17 set by the Court. In fact, the parties’ stipulation of extending the Fact Discovery cutoff is contingent on 18 such an extension not affecting the trial date. 19 7. Further, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Production of Complete Juvenile Case File for C.E. 20 (DE 54) is still pending. In the event this Court grants Plaintiff’s unopposed Motion, Plaintiff anticipates 21 that the production of the Case File may provide for further discovery, as well. 22 23 24 8. Expert Disclosure is currently set for March 14, 2017. Expert rebuttal is set for April 14, 2017. Expert discovery cutoff is set for May 15, 2017. 9. The parties respectfully request that the Court extend the Expert Discovery deadlines 30 25 days as follows: (1) Expert Disclosure: April 14, 2017; (2) Expert rebuttal: May 15, 2017; (3) Expert 26 Discovery cutoff: June 15, 2017. 27 previously set by the Court. 28 contingent on such an extension not affecting the trial date. 2 30 31 This extension will not affect the trial date or any other dates In fact, the parties’ stipulation of extending the Discovery cutoff is STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE FACT AND EXPERT DISCOVERY CUTOFF USDC Case No.: 3:16-cv-01256-WHO 1 10. The parties respectfully request that the Court approve this stipulation and incorporate its 2 terms in an Order. 3 4 Dated: February 13, 2017 BERTRAND, FOX, ELLIOT, OSMAN & WENZEL 5 By: 6 7 8 9 10 Dated: February 13, 2017 /s/ Ethan Lowry Eugene B. Elliot Ethan M. Lowry Kate L. Brown Attorneys for Defendant SANTA ROSA CITY SCHOOLS HERMAN LAW 11 12 By: 13 14 /s/ Arick Fudali Arick Fudali, Esq. (Calf. Bar No. 296364) Daniel G. Ellis, Esq. (Calf. Bar No. 298639) Attorneys for Plaintiff JANE DOE NO. 59 15 16 ATTORNEY ATTESTATION 17 18 I hereby attest that I have on file all holograph signatures for any signatures indicated by a 19 conformed signature (“/s/”) within this E-filed document or have been authorized by all parties to show 20 their signature on this document as /s/. 21 22 Dated: February 13, 2017 By: /s/ Ethan Lowry Ethan M. Lowry 23 24 25 26 27 28 30 31 3 STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE FACT AND EXPERT DISCOVERY CUTOFF USDC Case No.: 3:16-cv-01256-WHO 1 ORDER 2 GOOD CAUSE APPEARING THEREFORE, and the parties’ having stipulated to the same, the 3 parties’ stipulation is hereby APPROVED. The Fact Discovery cutoff currently set for February 14, 4 2017 is continued 60 days to April 10, 2017. This extension will not alter or affect the trial date or any 5 other dates previously set by the Court. 6 Expert Discovery deadlines are continued 30 days as follows: (1) Expert Disclosure: April 14, 7 2017; (2) Expert rebuttal: May 15, 2017; (3) Expert Discovery cutoff: June 15, 2017. This extension will 8 not affect the trial date or any other dates previously set by the Court. 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 12 13 Dated: February 13, 2017 William H. Orrick UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 30 31 4 STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE FACT AND EXPERT DISCOVERY CUTOFF USDC Case No.: 3:16-cv-01256-WHO 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 2 I, the undersigned, declare that I am employed in the County of San Francisco, California; I am 3 over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within cause; and my business address is 2749 Hyde 4 Street, San Francisco, California 94109. 5 I am readily familiar with the practice of Bertrand, Fox, Elliot, Osman & Wenzel with respect to 6 the collection and processing of pleadings, discovery documents, motions and all other documents which 7 must be served upon opposing parties or other counsel in litigation. 8 correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course of business 9 with the United States Postal Service in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid. 10 On the same day that On February 13, 2017, I served the following document: STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE FACT AND EXPERT DISCOVERY CUTOFF 11 12 on the following interested parties: 13 Ramon Espinosa Norma Espinosa 2426 Quail Hollow Drive Santa Rosa, California 95403 14 15 Pro Se Cross-Defendants 16 Said service was performed in the following manner: 17 18 () BY U.S. POSTAL SERVICE (Mail): I placed each such document in a sealed envelope 19 addressed at noted above, with first-class mail postage thereon fully prepaid, for collection and 20 mailing at San Francisco, California, following the above-stated business practice, on this date. 21 22 23 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed February 13, 2017, at San Francisco, California. 24 /s/ L Roberts L Roberts 25 26 27 28 30 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 31 U.S. District Court Case No.: 3:16-cv-01256-WHO

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?