Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00827/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00827-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:451 Employment Discrimination

---

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

 

1

BILL LOCKYER

Attorney General of the State of California

JACOB A. APPELSMITH

Senior Assistant Attorney General

STACY BOULWARE EURIE

Supervising Deputy Attorney General

WILLIAM T. DARDEN, State Bar No. 155079

Deputy Attorney General

1300 I Street, Suite 125

P.O. Box 944255

Sacramento, CA 94244-2550

Telephone: (916) 323-3830

Fax: (916) 324-5567

Attorneys for Defendant DEPARTMENT OF

GENERAL SERVICES

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SHARON PATERSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL

SERVICES, RAYMOND ASBELL and INTERCON SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 2:05-cv-0827-MCE-JFM

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO

MODIFY EXPERT DISCLOSURE

DATE TO PERMIT

COMPLETION OF REGULAR

DISCOVERY PRIOR TO EXPERT

DISCOVERY

Through their counsel of record, all of the parties in the above-entitled action hereby

stipulate and respectfully request that the Court modify the expert disclosure deadline in this case

so that regular discovery may first be completed, with expert discovery to commence after the

close of regular discovery, based upon the following facts:

1. On April 26, 2006, the Court signed a “Stipulation and Order To Continue The

Discovery Completion Date,” (“Discovery Cut-Off Stipulation”) extending that date to

September 29, 2006. The previous discovery cut-off date of June 14, 2006, had been set by the

Court’s Pre-Trial Scheduling Order of November 4, 2005. 

Case 2:05-cv-00827-MCE -JFM Document 24 Filed 07/14/06 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

 

2

However, at the time the Court entered that Order, Defendant Asbell had not yet been served and

thus his attorney had been unable to participate in the Rule 26 meeting of counsel or in the

setting of any pre-trial event dates. No other dates in the Court’s November 4, 2005, Pre-Trial

Scheduling Order were affected by the Discovery Cut-Off Stipulation. 

2. After the Court entered the Discovery Cut-Off Stipulation, counsel for defendant

Inter-Con Security Systems substituted out of the case. The Court signed the substitution of

counsel on June 1, 2006. Inter-Con’s newly retained counsel is now Kauff, McClain and

McGuire. 

3. Even prior to Inter-Con’s substitution of counsel, discovery in this case was

delayed due to the unavailability of the initial court-appointed VDRP neutral in this case. After

several months, it became clear that the neutral’s calendar was too crowded to accommodate the

parties, and the parties were required to ask the court to appoint a new neutral. Thus, discovery

was not able to begin in earnest until that VDRP process was completed. A Notice of

Completion of VDRP was filed on May 17, 2006. 

4. As it now stands, the schedule requires expert disclosures to commence on August

14, 2006, prior to the close of regular discovery on September 29, 2006. The parties have now

realized that modification of the regular discovery cut-off date, without modification of the

expert disclosure date, has placed the parties in the position of commencing expert discovery

before the facts of the case have been fully explored in regular discovery. Moreover, intervening

events have occurred since the filing of the original Discovery Cut-Off Stipulation that make it

impracticable and prejudicial for the parties to commence expert discovery until regular

discovery has been completed. 

5. For example, one of the parties has newly retained counsel, and permitting expert

disclosures after the close of regular discovery would permit all parties to disclose experts after

all parties have had a full and fair opportunity to learn and discover all relevant facts. Moreover,

Defendant Department of General Services (DGS) asked counsel for Plaintiff, on June 30, 2006,

to stipulate to a mental examination of Plaintiff. 

///

Case 2:05-cv-00827-MCE -JFM Document 24 Filed 07/14/06 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

 

3

On July 10, 2006, Plaintiff’s counsel informed DGS’s counsel that he will be unable to determine

whether or not Plaintiff will agree to a mental examination in time for DGS to file a timely

motion that would permit such an examination prior to the existing expert disclosure deadline. 

Thus, moving the expert disclosure date will also conserve judicial economy and avoid

unnecessary motion practice. 

7. The parties make this stipulation so that, in accordance with normal pre-trial

practice, they may disclose experts and file expert reports after regular discovery has even been

completed. This stipulation is not made for the purposes of delay. The trial date in this case is

set for March 14, 2006. The parties do not request a continuance of the trial date or any other

date in the Pre-Trial (Status) Scheduling Order. 

Based on the foregoing, the parties hereby stipulate and agree that:

a. Initial expert designations will be served on November 3, 2006;

b. Pursuant to this Court’s Pre-Trial Scheduling Order, supplemental/rebuttal

experts shall be designated within 20 days after the designation of expert

witnesses on November 3, 2006;

c. The parties do not anticipate that expert discovery will affect the filing of

dispositive motions under the facts of this case. The parties agree to

complete discovery of experts in a timely manner that will permit

compliance with the Court’s existing deadline for filing a joint pre-trial

statement.

DATE: July 11, 2006 By: s/Lawrence King__________ 

 Lawrence King

Attorney for Plaintiff

Sharon Paterson

DATE: July 11, 2006 By: s/William Darden_________ 

William Darden

Attorney for Defendant

Department of General Services

Case 2:05-cv-00827-MCE -JFM Document 24 Filed 07/14/06 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

 

4

DATE: July 11, 2006 By: __s/Daniel O’Donnell 

Daniel O’Donnell

Attorney for Defendant Raymond

Asbell

DATE: July 11, 2006 By: s/Jeffrey Polsky___ 

Jeffrey Polsky

KAUFF, MCCLAIN AND

MCGUIRE, LLP

Attorney for Inter-Con Security

Systems 

IT IS SO ORDERED:

DATE: July 13, 2006

___________________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-00827-MCE -JFM Document 24 Filed 07/14/06 Page 4 of 4