Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00521/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00521-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner 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

1

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR MODIFICATION OF THE COURT’S PRETRIAL 

SCHEDULING ORDERS (DOCS. 22 and 31) (2:15-cv-0521 CKD PC)

KAMALA D. HARRIS, State Bar No. 146672

Attorney General of California

ALBERTO L. GONZALEZ , State Bar No. 117605

Supervising Deputy Attorney General

JENNIFER MARQUEZ, State Bar No. 232194

Deputy Attorney General

1300 I Street, Suite 125

P.O. Box 944255

Sacramento, CA 94244-2550

Telephone: (916) 324-5569

Fax: (916) 322-8288

E-mail: Jennifer.Marquez@doj.ca.gov

Attorneys for Defendant L. Schmidt

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SACRAMENTO DIVISION

JESSE PEREZ, III,

Plaintiff,

v.

L. SCMIDT,

Defendant,

2:15-cv-0521 CKD PC

STIPULATION AND 

ORDER FOR MODIFICATION OF THE 

COURT’S PRETRIAL SCHEDULING 

ORDERS (DOCS. 22 and 31)

COMES NOW Defendant L. Schmidt, through her attorney of record, and Plaintiff Jesse 

Perez, III, in pro per, and subject to the approval of this Court, hereby stipulate and respectfully 

request modification of this Court’s Pretrial Scheduling Orders (Doc. 22 and 31.) The parties need 

additional time to complete discovery. 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:15-cv-00521-MCE-CKD Document 35 Filed 04/29/16 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

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR MODIFICATION OF THE COURT’S PRETRIAL 

SCHEDULING ORDERS (DOCS. 22 and 31) (2:15-cv-0521 CKD PC)

On December 10, 2015, Defendant served Plaintiff with Special Interrogatories, Set Two. 

The Court’s scheduling order provides that responses to discovery are due forty-five (45) days 

after the discovery request is served. Plaintiff’s due date to respond to Defendant’s written 

discovery was January 24, 2016. Defendant received Plaintiff’s responses on or about January 27, 

2016. After reviewing Plaintiff’s responses, Defendant sent Plaintiff a meet and confer letter on 

January 28, 2016 to address deficiencies in Plaintiff’s responses. Defendant requested that Plaintiff 

provide amended responses by February 11, 2016. Plaintiff then sent Defendant a letter dated 

February 13, 2016 stating that he was working on the discovery responses and would have them to

defendant “ASAP.”

The week of March 7, 2016, counsel for Defendant was unexpectedly out of the office and 

out of town due to a family medical emergency. When counsel for Defendant returned to the office 

on March 14, 2016, counsel worked on trial preparation for a trial that started March 29, 2016 and

lasted until April 5, 2016. 

On or about March 21, 2016, counsel for Defendant received a letter from Plaintiff stating 

that he had been temporarily transferred to Lerdo Pretrial Facility in Bakersfield, California, to 

attend a criminal proceeding in Kern County Superior Court. Plaintiff anticipates he will be at that 

location for four months or until the end of July of 2016. Plaintiff’s letter also stated that he did not 

have his discovery responses (interrogatories) that he was working on as part of our meet and 

confer efforts. Plaintiff also does not have his complaint. 

On April 8, 2016, counsel for Defendant responded to plaintiff’s letter. Defendant sent 

plaintiff a courtesy copy of his complaint and the discovery responses at issue, along with 

defendant’s prior meet and confer letter dated January 27, 2016. Defendant requested plaintiff 

provide his responses no later than May 2, 2016. If Plaintiff and Defendant are unable to resolve 

the discovery issue, Defendant will need to file a motion to compel further responses.

Additionally, on January 25, 2016, Defendant served Plaintiff with a Notice to Consumer 

regarding a subpoena for Plaintiff’s medical records from San Joaquin General Hospital and a copy 

of the subpoena for Plaintiff’s medical records from San Joaquin General Hospital. Plaintiff did 

not object. Due to a clerical error regarding plaintiff’s date of birth, the subpoena has been 

Case 2:15-cv-00521-MCE-CKD Document 35 Filed 04/29/16 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

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR MODIFICATION OF THE COURT’S PRETRIAL 

SCHEDULING ORDERS (DOCS. 22 and 31) (2:15-cv-0521 CKD PC)

re-issued and documents are requested to be produced on April 22, 2016. 

Once written discovery is completed, Defendant may wish to depose Plaintiff. Pursuant to 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 30 and the Court’s Scheduling Order (Doc. 22), Defendant must 

provide at least fourteen (14) days notice to depose Plaintiff. Plaintiff is currently under the 

custody of Kern County at Lerdo Pretrial Facility until, at least, the end of July of 2016. Plaintiff 

will return to the custody of High Desert State Prison sometime thereafter. Thus, Plaintiff’s 

deposition date will likely need to be coordinated with county officials at Lerdo Pretrial Facility, who 

require about ten days notice for scheduling depositions. 

This is the third stipulation to modify the court’s scheduling order. The parties previously 

stipulated and the court approved a modification of the court’s scheduling order. (Docs. 27 and 

29). 

Because the parties have been diligent in conducting discovery and need additional time to 

complete discovery, there is good cause to modify the scheduling order. Therefore, the parties 

propose the following schedule:

The discovery completion deadline of April 29, 2016 be extended one hundred and ten days 

(110) days or until August 18, 2016.

The pretrial motions deadline of July 20, 2016 be extended ninety (90) days or until 

October 20, 2016.

/ / / 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:15-cv-00521-MCE-CKD Document 35 Filed 04/29/16 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

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR MODIFICATION OF THE COURT’S PRETRIAL 

SCHEDULING ORDERS (DOCS. 22 and 31) (2:15-cv-0521 CKD PC)

IT IS SO STIPULATED

Dated: April 26, 2016 Attorney General’s Office of California

By: /s/ Jennifer Marquez

_____________________________

JENNIFER MARQUEZ

Deputy Attorney General

Attorneys for Defendant L. Schmidt

Dated: April 21, 2016 IN PRO PER

By: /s/ Jesse Perez, III

_______________________________

JESSE PEREZ, III

Plaintiff, In Pro Per

IT IS SO ORDERED

Dated: April 28, 2016

SA2015300903

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:15-cv-00521-MCE-CKD Document 35 Filed 04/29/16 Page 4 of 4