Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01401/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01401-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

McNeely v. County of Sacramento et al. Case No. 05cv1401

Stipulation 1

DOCK McNEELY,

Plaintiff,

v.

COUNTY OF SAC R AMENTO;

SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF’S

DEPARTMENT; LOU BLANAS, individually

and in his official capacity as Sheriff of

Sacramento County; COUNTY OF PLACER;

P LACER COUN T Y S HERIF F ’ S

DEPARTMENT; EDWARD BONNER,

individually and in his capacity as Sheriff of

Placer County, AND DOES 1 through 100,

inclusive,

Defendants.

Gregory M. Garrison (SBN 165215)

GARRISON & McINNIS, L.L.P.

2650 Camino del Rio North, Suite 108

San Diego, California 92108

E-Mail: ggarrison@gm-lawyers.com

Telephone: (619) 295-3200

Facsimile: (619) 299-3209

Attorneys for Plaintiff DOCK McNEELY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case No. 05 CV 1401 MCE DAD consolidated

with 05 CV 2549 WBS KJM

STIPULATION OF COUNSEL FOR 

ADDITIONAL DAY TO FILE REPLY TO 

OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND OR 

ADJUDICATION AND PROPOSED ORDER

THEREON

Dept.: 3

Date: August 3, 2007

Time: 9:00 a.m.

WHEREAS, PLAINTIFF’S Opposition to the SACRAMENTO DEFENDANTS’ Motion for

Summary Adjudication was to be personally served on the SACRAMENTO DEFENDANTS’ counsel

on July 20, 2007; and 

WHEREAS, PLAINTIFF’S counsel experienced technical difficulties with their e-mail on July

20, 2007 due to the size of the Notice of Lodgement filed in connection with PLAINTIFF’S Opposition;

and,

///

Case 2:05-cv-01401-MCE -DAD Document 58 Filed 08/02/07 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

McNeely v. County of Sacramento et al. Case No. 05cv1401

Stipulation 2

WHEREAS, due to the aforementioned technical difficulties PLAINTIFF was unable to e-mail

the Opposition to PLAINTIFFS attorney service to be served on the SACRAMENTO DEFENDANTS’

counsel until after 5:00 P.M. on July 20, 2007.

THEREFORE IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED AS FOLLOWS:

The SACRAMENTO DEFENDANTS shall have an additional day to file their Reply to

PLAINTIFF’S Opposition to the SACRAMENTO DEFENDANTS’ Motion for Summary Judgment

and/or Summary Adjudication of Issues. As such, the Reply is now due to be electronically filed with

the Court by 4:00 p.m. on Monday July 30, 2007. The parties further stipulate that the Reply can be

electronically served on PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL via e-mail.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

Dated: ________________ GARRISON & McINNIS, L.L.P.

By: ______________________________________

Gregory M. Garrison, Attorneys for

Plaintiff, DOCK McNEELY

Dated: ________________ PORTER, SCOTT, WEIBERG & DELEHANT

By: _______________________________________

John R. Whitefleet, Attorneys for

Defendants, COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO;

SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF’S

DEPARTMENT; LOU BLANAS, individually

and in his official capacity as Sheriff of

Sacramento County

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 1, 2007

________________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-01401-MCE -DAD Document 58 Filed 08/02/07 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

McNeely v. County of Sacramento et al. Case No. 05cv1401

Stipulation 3

C:\iFolder\mengland\Home\TO DOCKET CIVIL\05cv1401.PRIORITY.stip.0801.wpd

Case 2:05-cv-01401-MCE -DAD Document 58 Filed 08/02/07 Page 3 of 3