Woodard v. City of Menlo Park

Filing 89

STIPULATION AND ORDER, Motions terminated: 88 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery filed by Robert Lee Woodard, Ron Venzon.. Signed by Judge ARMSTRONG on 7/9/12. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/9/2012)

1
2
3
4
5

PETER C. MEIER (SB# 179019)
[e-mail]
KRISTIN M. HALL (SB# 261187)
[e-mail]
PAUL HASTINGS LLP
55 Second Street
Twenty-Fourth Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105-3441
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]

6
7
8
9
10
11

Attorneys for Plaintiff
ROBERT LEE WOODARD
JOHN L. FLEGEL (57010)
NICOLAS A. FLEGEL (229360)
JORGENSON, SIEGEL,
MCCLURE & FLEGEL, LLP
1100 Alma Street, Suite 210
Menlo Park, California 94025
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile:
650/324-0227

12
13

Attorneys for Defendant
RON VENZON

14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

15

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

16

OAKLAND DIVISION

17
18

Robert Lee Woodard,

19
20
21
22

CASE NO. C 09-3331 SBA

Plaintiff,
JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER
REGARDING DISCOVERY

vs.
City of Menlo Park, et al.,
Defendant.

Date:
Dept:
Judge:

July 5, 2012
Courtroom 1, 4th Floor
Hon. Saundra B. Armstrong

23
24

In accordance with Civil Local Rules 6-2 and 7-12, Plaintiff Robert Lee Woodard

25

(“Plaintiff”) and Defendant Officer Ron Venzon (“Defendant”), acting by and through their

26

respective counsel of record, hereby submit this stipulated request to amend the Court’s

27

scheduling order filed on June 11, 2012 (Docket No. 85) (“Scheduling Order”) as follows:

28
Case No. C 09-3331 SBA

JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER REGARDING DISCOVERY

1

1.

Plaintiff requests leave to depose as a fact witness the emergency room physician

2

that treated Plaintiff when he was hospitalized from February 4, 2007 through February 6, 2007

3

as a result of the events that occurred on the evening of February 3, 2007, which form the basis

4

for this lawsuit. This discovery is necessary so that Plaintiff may continue to gather facts about

5

the extent of injury suffered as a result of the events of February 3, 2007 and prepare for the

6

upcoming settlement conference and trial. Defendant does not oppose this request.

7

2.

Plaintiff requests leave to extend the deadline to exchange Rule 26 reports with

8

Defendant until at least one week prior to the dates scheduled for the expert depositions. Under

9

the Court’s current Scheduling Order, Plaintiff must designate its use-of-force and medical

10

experts no later than 30 days from the filing date of that Scheduling Order. That deadline falls on

11

July 11, 2012. Plaintiff therefore proposes to notify Defendant of its choice of medical and use-

12

of-force experts on or before July 11, 2012, and to set an appropriate deadline for exchanging

13

expert reports once those depositions are scheduled. Plaintiff requests this additional time to

14

complete its Rule 26 reports due to the difficulty it has faced locating and retaining experts on

15

short notice to work under the expedited schedule of this case. Defendant does not oppose this

16

request. In turn, Plaintiff will not object if Defendant seeks to designate a rebuttal medical expert.

17

3.

Plaintiff requests leave to propound no more than five (5) interrogatories on

18

Defendant. In its Scheduling Order, the Court granted leave for Plaintiff to propound no more

19

than ten (10) document requests, and Plaintiff now believes that a limited number of

20

interrogatories are necessary to supplement those document requests. Defendant does not oppose

21

this request.

22
23
24
25
26

This is the first modification Plaintiff has sought of the Court’s Scheduling Order, and the
proposed modifications would have no effect on the discovery cut-off of August 10, 2012.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, CONSENTED TO AND
AGREED AS FOLLOWS:
1. Plaintiff will notice the deposition of the physician that treated Mr. Woodard at

27

Stanford Hospital following the events occurring on February 3, 2007, which form

28

the basis of this lawsuit.
-1Case No. C 09-3331 SBA

JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER REGARDING DISCOVERY

1

2. On or before July 11, 2012, Plaintiff will provide notice of the use-of-force and

2

medical experts it has retained to provide testimony in this case.

3

3. Plaintiff will exchange its Rule 26 reports for both experts no later than one week

4

prior to the dates scheduled for the depositions of those experts.

5

4. Plaintiff will propound no more than five (5) interrogatories on Defendant.

6
7

DATED: July 5, 2012

8

PETER C. MEIER
KRISTIN M. HALL
PAUL HASTINGS LLP

9
10

By:

/s/
PETER C. MEIER

11

Attorneys for Plaintiff
ROBERT LEE WOODARD

12
13
14
15

In accordance with General Order No. 45, Section X(B), the above signatory attests that
concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from the signatory below.

16
17

DATED: July 5, 2012

JORGENSON, SIEGEL
McCLURE & FLEGEL, LLP

18
19

By:

/s/
NICOLAS A. FLEGEL

20

Attorneys for Defendant
RON VENZON

21
22

ORDER

23
24

The Joint Stipulation Regarding Discovery is hereby adopted by this Court.

25

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

26

DATED:

7/9/12
THE HON. SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

27
28

-2Case No. C 09-3331 SBA

JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER REGARDING DISCOVERY