Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-01536/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-01536-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

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

DENNIS J. HERRERA, State Bar #139669

City Attorney 

ELIZABETH S. SALVESON, State Bar #83788

Chief Labor Attorney 

MICHAEL J. LEON GUERRERO, State Bar #183818 

Deputy City Attorneys 

Fox Plaza 

1390 Market Street, 5th Floor 

San Francisco, California 94102-5408 

Telephone: (415) 554-4285 

Facsimile: (415) 554-4248 

Attorneys for Defendant 

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

PAUL J. SMOOT, SBN 160787 

ANDERLINI, FINKELSTEIN, EMERICK & SMOOT 

400 South El Camino Real, Suite 700 

San Mateo, California 94402 

Telephone: (650) 348-0102 

Facsimile (650) 348-0962 

Attorney for Plaintiffs 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JAMES ARMSTRONG, et al., 

 Plaintiffs, 

 vs. 

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN 

FRANCISCO and DOES 1-50 

INCLUSIVE 

 Defendant. 

Case No. C01-2611 VRW 

(Case No. C04-1536 VRW) 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER 

Action Filed: July 9, 2001 

Trial Date: None Set 

CONNIE L. BROWN 

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN 

FRANCISCO, et al. 

 Defendant. 

USDC CASE NO. C01-2611 VRW & C04-1536 VRW 1 N:\LABOR\LI2001\020413\00441669.DOC

Case 3:01-cv-02611-VRW Document 123 Filed 12/21/2007 Page 1 of 4 Case 3:04-cv-01536-VRW Document 39 Filed 12/28/07 Page 1 of 4
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

The parties submitted a joint stipulation and proposed order in mid-October 2007 to 

continue the currently set pre-trial deadlines. The Court did not sign that proposed order, 

indicating that the proposed dates were set too far out. Since that time, the parties' counsel have 

had repeat discussions regarding the scope of outstanding discovery needed for filing of 

dispositive motions, proposed completion dates for discovery, and potential settlement of the two 

remaining plaintiff's claims (there were originally eighteen plaintiffs, sixteen of whom settled 

through settlement conference with Judge Maria Elena James). Additionally, plaintiff's counsel, 

Paul Smoot, has finally completed his nine-week long trial in Sacramento and is now available to 

meet with and produce his plaintiffs for deposition in January 2008. Prior to trial completion, 

Smoot was unavailable to produce plaintiffs for deposition, nor were plaintiffs available for 

deposition. Accordingly, Smoot will produce both plaintiffs Connie Brown and Rheuben 

Johnson for the completion of their eight-hour depositions during the week of January 28, 2007. 

Smoot has also indicated that he intends to take the depositions of ten current and/or former City 

employees in February 28, 2008, March 5-7, 2008 and March 10, 11, and 13, 2008. However, 

because several of these witnesses no longer work for the City, and because the alleged conduct 

relating to these individuals spans back seven years to 2001, it will take time to locate and 

prepare these witnesses for deposition. The parties shall informally resolve the discovery 

disputes. 

Additionally, since mid-October 2007, defendant's counsel Deputy City Attorney 

Michael Leon Guerrero has been reviewing the multiple file cabinets of discovery documents, 

discovery responses, pleadings and motions previously filed and ruled upon, and correspondence 

dating back to September 2001 in order to familiarize himself with the case to take plaintiffs' 

depositions. This deputy was not assigned to this case until October 2007. However, because 

plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint and allegations of discriminatory treatment and wrongful 

conduct span over seven years and multiple City employees and actions, this review is somewhat 

time intensive. This extensive review is also necessary in order to produce and defend the 

depositions of the ten current and former City witnesses Smoot intends to take in February – 

March 2008. 

USDC CASE NO. C01-2611 VRW & C04-1536 VRW 2 N:\LABOR\LI2001\020413\00441669.DOC

Case 3:01-cv-02611-VRW Document 123 Filed 12/21/2007 Page 2 of 4 Case 3:04-cv-01536-VRW Document 39 Filed 12/28/07 Page 2 of 4
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

Since October 2007, Smoot has also had repeated discussions with his two clients 

regarding proposed settlement of their claims, in lieu of more protracted discovery and 

depositions. Smoot believes a settlement conference with Magistrate Judge Maria Elena James, 

after the close of discovery, has a good likelihood of producing a settlement as was accomplished 

with the sixteen other plaintiffs. Accordingly, the parties respectfully request that the Court 

schedule a settlement conference with Judge James after the close of discovery in mid-March 

2008, and if a settlement is not reached, then set the dispositive motion filing deadline for a date 

two weeks after that date. The parties also request that expert discovery commence after the 

ruling on the dispositive motions. 

Based on the above conversations and proposed discovery schedule, the parties jointly 

request that the discovery cut-off, dispositive motion deadlines, and expert discovery be 

continued as follows: 

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties hereto, through their 

respective counsel as undersigned, that: 

1. The non-expert discovery completion date be continued from the current deadline 

of November 13, 2007 to March 13, 2008 ; 

2. That the Court schedule a settlement conference in late-March 2008 - early April 

2008 with Magistrate Judge Maria Elena James; 

3. The filing deadline for dispositive motions, including summary judgment, be 

continued from the current deadline of November 16, 2007 to a date two weeks after completion 

of the settlement conference; 

3. Hearing on the dispositive motions be continued from the currently scheduled 

date of December 20, 2007 to a date 35 days after the date set for filing dispositive motions (or 

the first Thursday thereafter); 

4. Expert discovery disclosure reports to be exchanged within two months after the 

hearing on summary judgment; expert discovery rebuttal completion date to be within two weeks 

of the disclosure date; and expert discovery be completed within one month of the rebuttal 

completion date. 

USDC CASE NO. C01-2611 VRW & C04-1536 VRW 3 N:\LABOR\LI2001\020413\00441669.DOC

Case 3:01-cv-02611-VRW Document 123 Filed 12/21/2007 Page 3 of 4

Last day to hear dispositive motions: May 22, 2008 at 2:30pm 20 days Expert discovery deadline 45 days after xpert disclosures.

Case 3:04-cv-01536-VRW Document 39 Filed 12/28/07 Page 3 of 4
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

7. Pre-trial conference be continued from the currently scheduled date of March 4, 

2008 to June 24, 2008 at 9:00 a.m.. 

Dated: December 21, 2007_________ Respectfully submitted, 

DENNIS J. HERRERA 

City Attorney 

By: /s/Michael J. Leon Guerrero ___

 MICHAEL J. LEON GUERRERO 

 Deputy City Attorney 

 Attorneys for Defendants 

Dated: December 21, 2007 By: /s/Paul J. Smoot

 PAUL J. SMOOT 

 Attorney for Plaintiffs 

 

IT IS SO ORDERED : 

Dated:________________________ By:________________________ 

 HON. VAUGHN R. WALKER 

USDC CASE NO. C01-2611 VRW & C04-1536 VRW 4 N:\LABOR\LI2001\020413\00441669.DOC

Case 3:01-cv-02611-VRW Document 123 Filed 12/21/2007 Page 4 of 4

August 14, 2008 at 3:30 PM. 12/28/2007

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

AS MODIFIED

Judge Vaughn R Walker

Case 3:04-cv-01536-VRW Document 39 Filed 12/28/07 Page 4 of 4