N. R. , a Minor, et al v. Harris et al

Filing 26

Order Granting 25 Stipulation Extending Deadline to hold ENE. Signed by Hon. Edward J. Davila on 3/7/2013.(ecg, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/7/2013)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 RICHARD DOYLE, City Attorney (88625) NORA FRIMANN, Assistant City Attorney (93249) CLIFFORD GREENBERG, Sr. Deputy City Attorney (122612) STEVEN B. DIPPELL, Sr. Deputy City Attorney (121217) Office of the City Attorney 200 East Santa Clara Street, 16th Floor San Jos6, California 95113-1905 Telephone Number: (408) 535-1900 Facsimile Number: (408) 998-3131 E-Mail Address: cao.main@sanjoseca.gov Attorneys for Defendant, CITY OF SAN JOSE, et al. 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SAN JOSE DIVISION 11 12 N. R., a minor, et. al. Plaintiff(s), 13 14 15 16 17 18 SCOTT HARRIS, a San Jose police officer; SERGEANT DAVIS, a San Jose police officer; SERGEANT GRANT, a San Jose police officer; LEIUTENANT WEGER, a San Jose police officer; RQBERT DAVIS, individually andia his capacity as Chief of Police, et al., 21 STIPULATION AND XXXXXXXX [PROPOSED] ORDER MODIFYING DEADLINE TO HOLD EARLY NEUTRAL EVALUATION Defendant(s). 19 20 Case Number: CV12-04322 EJD Plaintiffs and Defendants in the above entitled matter hereby stipulate, and jointly request that the Court extend the deadline to hold an Early Neutral Evaluation to May 31, 22 2013. In support of this stipulation, the parties hereby submit the following as good cause 23 for granting this request: 24 1. The documents material to this dispute largely involve police reports relating 25 to incidents involving minors. As such, those reports are considered "juvenile records" 26 under the Welfare and Institutions Code and cannot be disclosed absent an Order from 27 28 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER MODIFYING Case NO. CV12~04322 EJD DEADLINE TO HOLD EARLY NEUTRAL EVALUATION .............. 1 the Juvenile Court or consent from the parents of the juveniles. Therefore, Defendants 2 have not yet disclosed the material documents. 3 2. The parties are attempting to obtain consent from the necessary parties. In 4 the absence of consent, a Petition and Order from the juvenile court will be sought. Either 5 way, the actual disclosure of documents will take some time and will not allow for 6 completion of the Early Neutral Evaluation before March 19, 2013, the current deadline. 7 3. In addition, due to various other conflicts, including scheduled trials, after 8 disclosure of the material documents, the parties are unable to hold the Early Neutral 9 Evaluation until May 31, 2013. 10 11 4. Given the fact that the postponement of the Early Neutral Evaluation would not delay the deadlines in this matter set by the Court, and for the reasons set forth 12 herein, the parties submit that good cause exists for the extension of the ADR deadline. 13 Accordingly, the parties hereby jointly request that the Court extend the deadline to 14 complete the Early Neutral Evaluation to May 31,2013. 15 16 Dated: March 6, 2013 By: 17 Is/Anthony Boskovich ANTHONY BOSKOVlCH 18 Attorney for Plaintiff, N.R., a minor 19 RICHARD DOYLE, City Attorney 2O 21 22 Dated: March 6, 2013 By: 23 24 25 26 /s/ Clifford Greenberq CLIFFORD GREENBERG Sr.i Deputy City Attorney Attorney for Defendants, CITY OF SAN JOSE, OFFICER SCOTT HARRIS, SERGEANT DAVIS; SERGEANT GRANT, LEIUTENANT WEGER, and FORMER POLICE CHIEF ROBERT DAVIS 27 28 ........ ..... STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER MODIFYING DEADLINE TO HOLD EARLY NEUTRAL EVALUATION .... Case NO. CV12~04322 EJD ORDER 1 2 Based upon the Stipulation of the parties, and good cause appearing therefore, the 3 Court hereby extends the deadline to hold an Early Neutral Evaluation in this case to 4 May 31, 2013. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 7 Dated: 8 3/7/2013 HONORABLE EDWARD J. DAVlLA 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER MODIFYING Case NO. CV12-04322 EJD

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?