Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00072/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00072-12/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

Joint Status Report Page 1 Vo v. County of Sacramento, 2:06-cv-00072

Anthony J. Palik (SBN 190971)

LAW OFFICES OF FERNANDO F. CHAVEZ, INC.

1107 Ninth Street, Suite 1011

Sacramento, CA 95814

Office: (916) 325-1188/Fax: (916) 325-1180

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Richard Maddox, Karen Alexandrou, Tien Hong Vo, Thong Vo,

Ngau Thi Nguyen, and Sonia Luong.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SACRAMENTO DIVISION

TIEN HONG VO, THONG VO, NGAU THI

NGUYEN, and SONIA LUONG,

Plaintiffs

v.

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, JAN

SCULLY, CYNTHIA BESEMER, KAREN

MAXWELL, NATALIA LUNA, WILLIAM

MOTMANS, and JAMES COOPER,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 2:06-CV-00072-GEB-PAN

STIPULATED REQUEST AND ORDER

TO CONTINUE HEARING ON

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL

DISCOVERY RE WARREN WEIKEL

_____________________________________ )

Pursuant to the Court’s order dated August 16, 2007, and Local Rule 78-230(g), the abovenamed plaintiffs and defendants hereby submit the following stipulated request to continue the

hearing date on the Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Discovery re Warren Weikel:

1. A deposition of a witness in the above-entitled case, WARREN WEIKEL, was conducted

on June 27, 2007.

2. After an exchange of correspondence between the parties subsequent to the deposition

regarding MR. WEIKEL’s testimony, plaintiffs herein filed a motion to compel the answers to

several questions to which objections had been interposed and the witness had been instructed not

to answer on various grounds including asserted evidentiary privileges.

3. Misconstruing Local Rule 37-251 and mistakenly believing that a memorandum of points

and authorities would be filed in addition to a joint statement of the parties, on July 25, 2007,

plaintiffs filed a Notice of Motion to compel the witness to answer certain questions posed to him

Case 2:06-cv-00072-GEB-EFB Document 65 Filed 08/23/07 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

1

Because the courtroom deputy was not available for consultation on the day that the

Amended Notice of Motion was filed, plaintiffs’ counsel followed the instructions contained in

the deputy’s voice mail regarding the Courts’ self-set calendar and filed the Amended Notice of

Motion.

Joint Status Report Page 2 Vo v. County of Sacramento, 2:06-cv-00072

at his deposition but for which no answers were give, along with a memorandum of points and

authorities. On July 26, 2007, this Court ordered that a joint statement be filed pursuant to Local

Rule 37-251 five court days before the hearing on plaintiffs’ motion, which was originally scheduled

to be heard on August 15, 2007. Because the parties were originally scheduled to meet and confer

on August 9 regarding the plaintiffs’ motion (and the joint statement was now due on August 8

pursuant to the Court’s order), plaintiffs’ counsel contacted the Court’s deputy and rescheduled the

hearing date by one week, to August 22, so that sufficient time would be available for the

opportunity to meet and confer. In the meantime, the plaintiffs drafted a joint statement, which was

submitted to defense counsel prior to the August 9 meeting.

4. On August 9, the parties met and discussed the plaintiffs’ motion, at which time it was

determined that plaintiffs would need to redraft the joint statement in order to fully comply with the

requirements of Rule 37-251. When it became clear to plaintiffs that they would not have sufficient

time to complete the revision before the new due date of August 15, they filed an amended Notice

of Motion resetting the hearing date to August 29, 2007, using the same procedure that had been

followed previously.1

5. On August 16, 2007, the Court filed a minute order in which plaintiffs’ Amended Notice of

Motion was generously construed as a request for a continuance of the hearing date pursuant to

Local Rule 78-230(g), and the plaintiffs were instructed to follow that rule when requesting any

further continuances.

6. On August 19, 2007, after spending the weekend completing the revisions to the joint

statement, plaintiffs’ counsel sent the joint statement by e-mail to defense counse, MR. JOHN

LAVRA, so that he could complete his portion. Because the present date for submission of the joint

statement is August 22 and would not afford the defendants sufficient time to complete their portion

Case 2:06-cv-00072-GEB-EFB Document 65 Filed 08/23/07 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

Joint Status Report Page 3 Vo v. County of Sacramento, 2:06-cv-00072

of that statement, the parties are requesting additional time to permit the defendants to do so.

7. Therefore, the parties are asking the court to continue the date set for a hearing on Plaintiffs’

Motion to Compel re Warren Weikel to September 5, 2007, with the joint statement to be filed on

or before August 29, 2007.

Respectfully Submitted,

Dated: August 20, 2007

THE LAW OFFICES OF FERNANDO F. CHAVEZ, INC.

 /s/

Anthony J. Palik, Esq.

Dated: 8/20/07

LONGYEAR, O’DEA & LAVRA, LLP

 /s/ Jeri L. Pappone

John A. Lavra, Esq.

ORDER

Pursuant to the above stipulated request to continue the hearing date for the Plaintiffs’

Motion to Compel Discovery re Warren Weikel, and good cause appearing therefor, it is hereby

ordered that the hearing date on that motion is continued to , at , in

Courtroom of this court, and that the joint statement required by L.R. 37-251 be filed on

or before .

SO ORDERED,

Dated: 

By: 

Magistrate Judge

##

Case 2:06-cv-00072-GEB-EFB Document 65 Filed 08/23/07 Page 3 of 3