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)

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: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email:
[e-mail]
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