Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00541/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00541-13/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: 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

KAMALA D. HARRIS, State Bar No. 146672

Attorney General of California

JUDITH A. RECCHIO, State Bar No. 163060

Supervising Deputy Attorney General

AMY LINDSEY DOYLE State Bar No. 242205

Deputy Attorney General

MATTHEW T. BESMER, State Bar No. 269138

Deputy Attorney General

2550 Mariposa Mall, Room 5090

Fresno, CA 93721

Telephone: (559) 477-1680

Fax: (559) 445-5106

E-mail: Matthew.Besmer@doj.ca.gov

Attorneys for Defendants Department of 

Developmental Services, David Corral,

Douglas Loehner and Michael Flores

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRESNO DIVISION

YVONNE ARCURE, KEVIN COOK, & 

JOSEPH FESSENDEN,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 

DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES, 

DEBORAH MEEKER, JEFFREY 

BRADLEY, DOUGLAS LOEHNER, 

DAVID CORRAL, & MICHAEL FLORES,

Defendants.

1:13-cv-00541-LJO-BAM

STIPULATION AND ORDER RE 

DEPOSITIONS BY ORAL 

EXAMINATION

The Parties stipulated to modifying the deposition limits provided by Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 30 in their Joint Scheduling Report (Doc. 114, ¶ 6(e)). Their stipulation was not 

ratified in the Joint Scheduling Order (Doc. 117). Their stipulation is reasonable and necessary 

given that the conduct Plaintiffs complain about occurred over the course of more than six years 

and was witnessed by numerous individuals. Indeed, Plaintiffs disclosed 51 witnesses in their 

Case 1:13-cv-00541-MJS Document 120 Filed 09/03/14 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

initial disclosures and Defendants California Department of Developmental Services, Douglas 

Loehner, and Michael Flores disclosed 57 witnesses. The Parties request that the Court enter the 

following stipulation as an Order:

The Parties stipulate that notwithstanding Rule 30(d), Plaintiffs Arcure, Cook, and

Fessenden may notice a combined total of 21 depositions. The Parties stipulate that Defendants 

may notice a combined total of 21 depositions. Of these 21 depositions, Defendant Bradley may 

notice a total of 2 depositions. Further, the Parties stipulate that the Parties may notice Extended

Depositions (a deposition of 12 hours over the course of two days) without leave of court as 

follows: 

Plaintiffs Arcure, Cook, and Fessenden may notice eight Extended Depositions; and 

Defendants DDS, Loehner, and Flores may notice eight Extended Depositions. 

Defendants may stipulate to re-allocate the number of depositions amongst themselves 

without leave of court, and without approval or agreement from Plaintiffs.

The Parties may seek leave of court to notice additional depositions in accordance with 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

SO STIPULATED.

Dated: August 26, 2014 Respectfully submitted,

KAMALA D. HARRIS

Attorney General of California

JUDITH A. RECCHIO 

Supervising Deputy Attorney General

/s/ Matthew T. Besmer 

MATTHEW T. BESMER

Deputy Attorney General

Attorneys for Defendants

Department of Developmental Services,

Douglas Loehner and Michael Flores

Case 1:13-cv-00541-MJS Document 120 Filed 09/03/14 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

Dated: August 6, 2014 LAW OFFICES OF LAWRENCE J. KING

 /s/ Lawrence J. King

 

____________________________________

Lawrence J. King, Attorney for 

Plaintiffs

Dated: July 29, 2014 JEFFREY BRADLEY 

/s/ Jeffrey Bradley 

___________________________________________

Jeffrey Bradley

Pro Per

ORDER

The Court having reviewed the foregoing Stipulation, and for good cause appearing, IT IS

HEREBY ORDERED that:

Plaintiffs Arcure, Cook, and Fessenden may notice a combined total of 21 depositions. 

Defendants may notice a combined total of 21 depositions. Of these 21 depositions, Defendant 

Bradley may notice a total of 2 depositions. Further, the Parties may notice Extended Depositions 

(a deposition of 12 hours over the course of two days) without leave of court as follows: 

1. Plaintiffs Arcure, Cook, and Fessenden may notice eight Extended Depositions; 

2. Defendants DDS, Loehner, and Flores may notice eight Extended Depositions; 

3. Defendants may stipulate to re-allocate the number of depositions amongst 

themselves without leave of court, and without approval or agreement from Plaintiffs; 

4. The Parties may seek leave of court to notice additional depositions in accordance 

with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Notwithstanding the stipulation, the Court is concerned with the number of depositions,

the expense, and the potential scheduling difficulties. The parties are directed to meet and confer, 

with at least one telephonic meet and confer, and provide to the Court a proposed schedule for the 

anticipated depositions. If the parties are uncertain of all persons/entities who/which will be 

deposed, the parties shall decide upon and propose a schedule for the first 10 depositions for each 

Case 1:13-cv-00541-MJS Document 120 Filed 09/03/14 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

side. (Each side must identify and propose a schedule for at least 10 persons/entities which that 

side wishes to depose.) The proposed schedule shall be provided to the Court in a status report 

filed no later than September 26, 2014.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 3, 2014 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00541-MJS Document 120 Filed 09/03/14 Page 4 of 4