Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00480/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00480-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

PATRICIA MUGRAUER and WADE 

MUGRAUER,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

CITY OF MODESTO, a municipal 

corporation, Modesto Police Department Chief 

GALEN CARROLL, in his Individual and 

Official Capacities, Modesto Police Officer 

JOHN C. LEE, Individually, and DOES 1 

through 50, Jointly and Severally, 

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 1:16-cv-00480-AWI-SAB

ORDER RE STIPULATION TO EXTEND 

TIME TO COMPLETE VOLUNTARY 

DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROGRAM 

(VDRP) UNDER LOCAL RULE 271 

(ECF No. 17)

The parties respectfully submit the following Stipulation and Proposed Order:

STIPULATION

WHEREAS, the parties to the above-entitled action have agreed to participate in the 

Voluntary Dispute Resolution Program (“VDRP”) and were referred to the program on July 5, 

2016 (Dkt. 15). The parties selected a neutral from the list provided, one James R. Kirby II, 

Esq., and, once the parties were contacted by Mr. Kirby, a session was ultimately scheduled for

September 28, 2016. Counsel for the parties met-and-conferred on numerous occasions after 

the date of the referral during the intervening time period leading up to the scheduled session, 

and the issues in the case were discussed. Unfortunately, it became apparent after the exchange 

of information that the City of Modesto Defendants would not be able to meaningfully engage 

in the VDRP mediation session until certain discovery was conducted, namely, a defense 

Case 1:16-cv-00480-AWI-SAB Document 18 Filed 11/10/16 Page 1 of 3
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

medical exam of Plaintiff Patricia Mugrauer. The parties decided to postpone the session until 

it could be held in a meaningful way, in order to avoid a wasted session, including both the 

session time and the travel time expended for counsel and the parties to attend a session in 

Sacramento, where Mr. Kirby’s office is located; counsel for Plaintiff would be traveling from 

San Francisco and Oakland, while Plaintiffs would be traveling from Modesto, and counsel for 

– and – Defendants would be traveling from Oakland and Modesto, respectively.

Local Rule 271(j)(1) provides, in relevant part that: “the session shall be held as soon as 

reasonably possible, but no more than ninety-one (91) days after the Neutral is selected, unless 

otherwise ordered by the Court[.]” Here, the VDRP session has not yet been held and will be 

held outside of these temporal parameters. The parties have met-and-conferred, however, and 

are aware of the general nature of the case and the issues presented. Additionally, key 

documents have been exchanged. The parties still wish to make a good faith effort at 

participating in VDRP. In the meantime, the parties have been and will continue to engage in 

discovery. Thus, extending the time period within which to complete VDRP under Local Rule 

271(j)(1) will advance the central purposes of Local Rule 271.

Additionally, the current Scheduling Order (Dkt. 13) sets February 15, 2017 as the 

deadline for Expert Disclosures. The parties hope to complete the VDRP session well in 

advance of the exchange of Expert Disclosures, but if that cannot be done or if such disclosures 

are needed for a productive VDRP session to occur, an appropriate deadline by which to hold 

the VDRP session would be one week after this Expert Disclosures deadline, on February 22, 

2017.

Accordingly, based on the circumstances described above, the parties respectfully and 

jointly request that the Court issue a further order, extending the deadline within which to hold 

the VDRP session to February 22, 2017. 

WHEREFORE, THE PARTIES HEREBY STIPULATE and respectfully request that 

the deadline within which to hold the VDRP session be extended to February 22, 2017.

All other deadlines and the Pretrial Conference and Trial dates would remain as set for the 

Case 1:16-cv-00480-AWI-SAB Document 18 Filed 11/10/16 Page 2 of 3
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

time being, as discovery progresses.

Dated: November 10, 2016 Respectfully Submitted,

LAW OFFICE OF SANJAY S. SCHMIDT

and

LAW OFFICES OF PANOS LAGOS

 /s/ Sanjay S. Schmidt 

By: SANJAY S. SCHMIDT 

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Dated: November 10, 2016 Respectfully Submitted,

MEYERS, NAVE, RIBACK, SILVER & WILSON

/s/ Blake P. Loebs

By: BLAKE P. LOEBS 

Attorneys for Defendants,

CITY OF MODESTO, GALEN CARROLL, 

and JOHN C. LEE

ORDER

Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Stipulated 

Request is granted, as set forth in the Stipulation above: the deadline within which to hold the 

VDRP session shall be extended to February 22, 2017.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 10, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00480-AWI-SAB Document 18 Filed 11/10/16 Page 3 of 3