Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01025/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01025-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 350
Nature of Suit: Motor Vehicle Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Personal Injury

---

- 1 -

STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES TO MODIFY THE PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER AND EXTEND 

DISCOVERY DEADLINES; ORDER

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

JOHN D. FEENEY, ESQ. (SBN 84373) 

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY

Law Department

10031 Foothills Boulevard, Suite 200

Roseville, CA 95747

General: (916) 789-6400

Direct: (916) 789-6231

Facsimile: (916) 789-6227

E-Mail: jdfeeney@up.com

Attorneys for Defendant

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KATIE M. STEFFEN,

Plaintiff,

vs.

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, a 

Delaware Corporation, BRIAN L. KLINE 

and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:15-CV-01025-TLN-KJN

STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES TO 

MODIFY THE PRETRIAL

SCHEDULING ORDER AND EXTEND 

DISCOVERY DEADLINES;

ORDER

STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES TO MODIFY THE PRETRIAL 

SCHEDULING ORDER AND EXTEND DISCOVERY DEADLINES

Pursuant to Rules 16(b) (4) and 29 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 

Defendants UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY and BRIAN L. KLINE and 

Plaintiff KATIE M. STEFFEN, by and through their attorneys of record, subject to 

the approval of the Court and good cause present, hereby stipulate to modify the 

Pretrial Scheduling Order dated July 22, 2015, and extend the time for discovery 

deadlines previously set in this matter. 

///

///

Case 2:15-cv-01025-TLN-KJN Document 10 Filed 03/23/16 Page 1 of 3
- 2 -

STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES TO MODIFY THE PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER AND EXTEND 

DISCOVERY DEADLINES; ORDER

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 submit that there is good cause for the proposed modification of 

this Court’s Pretrial Scheduling order for the following reasons: While this lawsuit 

revolves around a relatively simple set of facts – a two car collision on I-80 on

September 3, 2015 – based upon a review of medical records subpoenaed to date, 

plaintiff is not currently medically stable and continues to treat with a variety of 

medical practitioners for myriad injuries, resulting primarily from a head injury

(skull fracture). The parties understand that the basic diagnosis is traumatic brain 

injury, resulting in cognitive disabilities, including memory loss. While the 

defendants have been diligent in collecting medical records, depositions of the 

plaintiff and her treaters at this point are premature. Defendants have postponed 

the depositions for a time when when plaintiff has medically plateaued. While the

parties’ understanding is that the prognosis is guarded, both sides agree that 

additional time is warranted to make the depositions meaningful. Both sides desire 

to avoid duplicative depositions of treaters, as well as the plaintiff. 

THEREFORE, THE PARTIES STIPULATE AND AGREE AND RESPECTFULLY 

REQUEST the following modifications to the scheduling order:

The date for completion of discovery, with the exception of expert discovery, is 

currently scheduled for June 30, 2016. The parties request an extension of this 

deadline to September 30, 2016. 

The expert disclosure deadline is currently scheduled for August 25, 2016. 

The parties request an extension of this deadline to November 28, 2016. 

The exchange of lists of rebuttal expert witnesses is currently scheduled for

20 days after August 26, 2016 – or September 14, 2016. The parties request an 

extension of this deadline to 20 days following the proposed new deadline of 

November 28, 2016 for expert disclosure- or December 15, 2016.

Counsel was instructed to complete all discovery of expert witnesses in a 

timely manner in order to comply with the Court’s deadline for filing dispositive 

motions. As a dispositive motion is not appropriate in this case, the parties request 

Case 2:15-cv-01025-TLN-KJN Document 10 Filed 03/23/16 Page 2 of 3
- 3 -

STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES TO MODIFY THE PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER AND EXTEND 

DISCOVERY DEADLINES; ORDER

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

an extension of the expert witness discovery completion date for 75 days after the 

rebuttal disclosure – or February 28, 2017.

All other dates will remain the same as provided for in the July 22, 2015 

Pretrial Scheduling Order. 

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED.

Dated: 3/17/16 DREYER BABICH BUCCOLA WOOD & 

CAMPORA, LLP

By: /s/

ROBERT BUCCOLA

State Bar No.112880

Attorneys for Plaintiff KATIE STEFFEN

Dated: 3/18/16 UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY

By: /s/

JOHN D. FEENEY

State Bar No. 84373

Attorney for Defendant

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY

IT IS SO ORDERED: 

Dated: March 23, 2016

Case 2:15-cv-01025-TLN-KJN Document 10 Filed 03/23/16 Page 3 of 3