Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00276/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00276-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act

---

OVERBECK v UNIVERSITY OF SAN FRANCISCO [2:15-CV-00276-GEB-AC] – STIPULATION AND 

[PROPOSED] ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S DEPOSITION AND EXPERT DISCLOSURES

S:\Client\101 USF\059 Sam Overbeck\Discovery\Stipulation re Plfs Deposition.doc

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

MICHAEL J. VARTAIN [SBN 92366]

WILLIAM C. TEELING [SBN 296155]

VARTAIN LAW GROUP

601 Montgomery Street, Suite 780

San Francisco, CA 94111-2664

Telephone: [415] 391-1155

Facsimile: [415] 391-1177

Attorneys for Defendant

UNIVERSITY OF SAN FRANCISCO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

J. SAMUEL OVERBECK, 

Plaintiff,

v.

UNIVERSITY OF SAN FRANCISCO, a 

California corporation, and DOES 1 

through 50, inclusive, 

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 2:15-cv-00276-GEB-AC

DISCOVERY 

STIPULATION AND ORDER [PROPOSED] 

REGARDING DEFENDANT’S DEPOSITION 

OF PLAINTIFF AND TO CONTINUE 

DEADLINE FOR EXPERT WITNESS 

DISCLOSURES

Judge: Hon. Garland E. Burrell

Trial Date: November 1, 2016

Complaint Filed: January 8, 2015

Case 2:15-cv-00276-GEB-AC Document 8 Filed 01/04/16 Page 1 of 4
OVERBECK v UNIVERSITY OF SAN FRANCISCO [2:15-CV-00276-GEB-AC] – STIPULATION AND 

[PROPOSED] ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S DEPOSITION AND EXPERT DISCLOSURES

S:\Client\101 USF\059 Sam Overbeck\Discovery\Stipulation re Plfs Deposition.doc -1-

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

STIPULATION

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between Plaintiff J. Samuel Overbeck 

(“Plaintiff”) and Defendant University of San Francisco (“the University”):

That the University has been diligent in attempting to schedule and complete Plaintiff’s 

deposition. 

That Plaintiff has stated his availability to sit for his deposition in Sacramento, 

California on January 28 and 29, 2016, the earliest dates of availability that Plaintiff has 

provided to sit for his deposition in the Eastern District of California.

That, pursuant to the Court’s April 27, 2015 Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order: “Each 

party shall comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B) and (C)’s initial expert 

witness disclosure requirements on or before January 15, 2016, and any contradictory and/or 

rebuttal expert disclosure authorized under Rule 26(a)(2)(D)(ii) on or before February 16, 

2016.” 

That, given that the University’s deposition of Plaintiff will not be completed until 

January 29, 2016, good cause exists for the Court to continue the deadline for the parties’ expert 

witness disclosures thirty days, until February 14, 2016, such that the parties will have an 

opportunity to evaluate their need for expert witnesses after completion of Plaintiff’s deposition.

That, good cause also exists for the Court to continue the deadline for the parties’ 

disclosure of rebuttal experts twenty-eight days, until March 15, 2016. 

Now therefore it is hereby stipulated that:

(1) Plaintiff, without failure or excuse, other than unforeseen and unavoidable 

emergencies, will appear to sit for his deposition in Sacramento, California, and will sit for and 

give his deposition under oath and to completion, with the deposition to begin on January 28, 

2016 and to continue on January 29, 2016. 

(2) The period of time for the parties to make initial disclosure of experts pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B) and (C) is continued thirty (30) days, until February 

14, 2016.

\ \ \

Case 2:15-cv-00276-GEB-AC Document 8 Filed 01/04/16 Page 2 of 4
OVERBECK v UNIVERSITY OF SAN FRANCISCO [2:15-CV-00276-GEB-AC] – STIPULATION AND 

[PROPOSED] ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S DEPOSITION AND EXPERT DISCLOSURES

S:\Client\101 USF\059 Sam Overbeck\Discovery\Stipulation re Plfs Deposition.doc -2-

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) The period of time for the parties to make disclosure of rebuttal experts pursuant 

to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(D) is continued twenty-eight (28) days until March 

15, 2016. 

SO STIPULATED:

DATED: January 4, 2016 FOOS GAVIN LAW FIRM, P.C.

BY:

SEAN GAVIN

Attorney for Plaintiff

J. SAMUEL OVERBECK

DATED: January 4, 2016 VARTAIN LAW GROUP

BY:

MICHAEL J. VARTAIN

WILLIAM C. TEELING

Attorneys for Defendant

UNIVERSITY OF SAN FRANCISCO

Case 2:15-cv-00276-GEB-AC Document 8 Filed 01/04/16 Page 3 of 4
OVERBECK v UNIVERSITY OF SAN FRANCISCO [2:15-CV-00276-GEB-AC] – STIPULATION AND 

[PROPOSED] ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S DEPOSITION AND EXPERT DISCLOSURES

S:\Client\101 USF\059 Sam Overbeck\Discovery\Stipulation re Plfs Deposition.doc -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

[PROPOSED] ORDER

Based on the foregoing Stipulation, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1) Plaintiff J. Samuel Overbeck, without failure or excuse, other than unforeseen 

and unavoidable emergencies, will appear to sit for his deposition in Sacramento, California, 

and will sit for and give his deposition under oath and to completion, with the deposition to 

begin on January 28, 2016 and to continue on January 29, 2016. 

2) The period of time for the parties to make initial disclosure of experts pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B) and (C) is continued thirty (30) days, until February 

14, 2016.

3) The period of time for the parties to make disclosure of rebuttal experts pursuant 

to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(D) is continued twenty-eight (28) days until March 

15, 2016.

Dated: January 4, 2016

Case 2:15-cv-00276-GEB-AC Document 8 Filed 01/04/16 Page 4 of 4