Gonzalez v. Tuvera et al

Filing 44

STIPULATION AND ORDER re 43 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Regarding Discovery Disagreement and for Extension of Time for Plaintiff to Respond to Motion for Summary Judgment filed by E. Bridgnell, D. Bright, J. Turner, A. Adams, J. Dunlap, F. Tuvera, T. Wy, J. Villafuerte, E. Talanoa, L. Gamboa, M. Ulloa, Orfield, Kim Kumar, F. Mejia, E. DelaRosa. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on April 16, 2018. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/16/2018)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

XAVIER BECERRA
Attorney General of California
MARISA Y. KIRSCHENBAUER
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
ROBERT W. HENKELS
Deputy Attorney General
State Bar No. 255410
455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000
San Francisco, CA 94102-7004
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendants
A. Adams, E. Bridgnell, D. Bright, E. DelaRosa, J.
Dunlap, L. Gamboa, K. Kumar, F. Mejia, Orfield, E.
Talanoa, J. Turner, F. Tuvera, M. Ulloa, J.
Villafuerte, and T. Wy

10
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
11
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
12
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
13
14
15

ALFREDO GONZALEZ,

16
17

v.

18
F. TUVERA, et al.,

C 16-2294 JST (PR)
Plaintiff, STIPULATION REGARDING
DISCOVERY DISAGREEMENT AND
FOR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR
PLAINTIFF TO RESPOND TO MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT;
[PROPOSED] ORDER

19
Defendants.
20
21

Judge:
The Honorable Jon S. Tigar
Trial Date:
N/A
Action Filed: April 27, 2016

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1

Stip. re Disc. & EOT re Resp. Summ. J.; [Proposed] Order (C 16-2294 JST (PR))

1

Plaintiff Alfredo Gonzalez, an inmate at Salinas Valley State Prison in pro se, and

2

Defendants A. Adams, E. Bridgnell, D. Bright, E. DelaRosa, J. Dunlap, L. Gamboa, K. Kumar, F.

3

Mejia, Orfield, E. Talanoa, J. Turner, F. Tuvera, M. Ulloa, J. Villafuerte, and T. Wy, by and

4

through their counsel of record, agree and stipulate as follows:

5

1.

Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment challenging Plaintiff’s claim that

6

Defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth

7

Amendment. Plaintiff wishes to view all available discovery before preparing his response.

8

2.

The parties are currently working to resolve their discovery disagreement. Plaintiff

9

has filed a motion to compel production of discovery against Defendant Tuvera. Defense counsel

10

provided Plaintiff with over 1500 medical records, and mistakenly believed that this resolved the

11

disagreement. Plaintiff and Defense counsel have discussed this issue on numerous occasions,

12

most recently on April 11 and 13, 2018. On April 11, 2018, Plaintiff informed Defense counsel

13

that he sought additional records, and that he would provide Defense counsel with a letter

14

specifying those record. Unfortunately, Plaintiff became preoccupied with unrelated but

15

important matters, and was unable to provide Defense counsel with that letter.

16

3.

Both parties agree and stipulate that Plaintiff should have a full and fair opportunity

17

to conduct discovery before responding to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, and that it

18

is in both parties’ interest and the Court’s for the parties to have further opportunity to resolve

19

their current disagreement.

20

4.

The parties agree and request that Plaintiff’s deadline to file a response to

21

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment be extended forty-five days, until June 28, 2018, and

22

for additional time to resolve their discovery dispute.

23

5.

The parties have agreed to discuss this issue again on Monday, April 23, 2018. At

24

that time, the parties shall address whether they can resolve their discovery disagreement, whether

25

they should request to be referred to a magistrate judge for assistance, or whether they shall seek

26

further guidance from this Court.

27
28

5.

Plaintiff’s deadline to file a response to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment

has previously been extended three times.
2
Stip. re Disc. & EOT re Resp. Summ. J.; [Proposed] Order (C 16-2294 JST (PR))

1
2

6.

This request for an extension of time will not affect the time management in this case,

as it is not presently scheduled for trial.

3
4
5

IT IS SO STIPULATED.
Dated: April 16, 2018

Respectfully submitted,

6

XAVIER BECERRA
Attorney General of California
MARISA Y. KIRSCHENBAUER
Supervising Deputy Attorney General

7
8
9

Robert W. Henkels

/s/
ROBERT W. HENKELS
Deputy Attorney General
Attorneys for Defendants

10
11
12
13
14

Dated: ________, 2018

Plaintiff Alfredo Gonzalez, in pro se

15
16
[Signature on Following Page]
Alfredo Gonzalez

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3

Stip. re Disc. & EOT re Resp. Summ. J.; [Proposed] Order (C 16-2294 JST (PR))

1
2

ORDER OF THE COURT
The Court, having read the parties’ stipulation, and good cause appearing, hereby GRANTS

3

the parties’ request for extensions of time. Plaintiff Alfredo Gonzalez’s may file a response to

4

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on or before June 28, 2018. Defendants may file a

5

reply brief no later than 14 days after the opposition is filed. Should the parties fail to resolve

6

their discovery dispute, they shall so advise the Court in a joint letter consistent with this Court’s

7

Standing Order for All Civil Cases.
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

UNIT
ED

10
April 16, 2018
Dated: _______________________

DISTRICT COURT JUDGE JON S. TIGAR

nS
J u d ge J o

H

ER

. Ti ga r

15
16

FO

RT

SF2016103881
Gonzalez - Stip re Disc. EOT Resp. Summ. J. (final) doc.doc

NO

13

LI

12

R NIA

ERED
O ORD
____________________________________
IT IS S

11

14

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

RT
U
O

S

9

A

8

N

D IS T IC T
R

OF

C

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
Stip. re Disc. & EOT re Resp. Summ. J.; [Proposed] Order (C 16-2294 JST (PR))