Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00532/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00532-4/pdf.json

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

---

Case No. 2:06-CV-00532-FCD-KJM Stipulation and Order to Submit to VDRP 

1 and to Stay Proceedings

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

Venkat Balasubramani 

(State Bar No. 189192) 

BALASUBRAMANI LAW 

8426 40th Ave. SW 

Seattle, Washington 98136 

(206) 529-4827 phone 

(206) 260-3966 fax 

venkat@balasubramani.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

California Parents for the Equalization of 

Educational Materials, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

Kenneth Noonan, Ruth Bloom, Alan Bersin, 

Yvonne Chan, Donald G. Fisher, Ruth E. Green, 

Joe Nuñez, Johnathan Williams, and David 

Lopez, all in their official capacities as Members 

of the California State Board of Education; and 

Tom Adams, in his official capacity as Director 

of the Curriculum Frameworks and Instructional 

Resources Division and Executive Director of 

the Curriculum Commission (of the California 

State Department of Education), 

 Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No. 2:06-CV-00532-FCD-KJM 

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO SUBMIT 

TO VOLUNTARY DISPUTE RESOLUTION 

PROGRAM AND TO STAY 

PROCEEDINGS 

LOCAL RULE 16-271 

The Honorable Frank C. Damrell, Jr. 

Plaintiff California Parents for the Equalization of Educational Materials, by and through its 

counsel, and Defendants, by and through their counsel, stipulate as follows: (1) to stay this 

proceeding until November 30, 2007, so that the Parties can engage in mediation under the Court’s 

Voluntary Dispute Resolution Program (VDRP), as set forth in Local Rule 16-271, and (2) to modify 

the Court’s Scheduling Order in this case both because of the referral to VDRP, and to conduct 

several depositions, which the parties would otherwise have had to request be conducted beyond the 

Case 2:06-cv-00532-FCD-KJM Document 52 Filed 08/22/07 Page 1 of 5
 

Case No. 2:06-CV-00532-FCD-KJM Stipulation and Order to Submit to VDRP 

2 and to Stay Proceedings

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

original discovery cut-off date. 

WHEREAS, the Court entered the operative Scheduling Order on December 27, 2007, which 

provides for a discovery cut-off of September 28, 2007, expert disclosure by October 12, 2007, 

supplemental expert disclosure by November 2, 2007, expert discovery cut-off by November 20, 

2007, dispositive motion cut-off of February 22, 2008, Final Pretrial Conference on May 2, 2008, and 

trial to commence on July 22, 2008. 

WHEREAS, the Parties feel that VDRP in the nature of non-binding mediation would be in 

the Parties’ best interests and would allow them to attempt to resolve the case, thereby conserving 

both the Parties’ and the Court’s resources; the Parties feel that such mediation should occur before 

the Parties expend substantial resources conducting depositions—of which 14 are anticipated and 10 

are currently scheduled beginning on August 30, 2007—expert discovery, pre-trial motions, and trial 

preparation. 

WHEREAS, both Parties anticipate seeking the Court’s leave to conduct limited discovery 

outside the existing discovery cut-off due to extenuating circumstances. Defendants would like to 

take the deposition of Rajesh Goswami, a director of Plaintiff. Mr. Goswami is currently in India 

attending to a family/medical emergency. Mr. Goswami is scheduled to return in approximately three 

months. Similarly, Plaintiff sought certain discovery from a third-party witness Michael Witzel, and 

in connection therewith, brought a Motion to Compel (in the District of Massachusetts). The trial 

court judge (in the District of Massachusetts) denied the Motion, and Plaintiff is currently appealing 

that decision. Plaintiff intends to seek a limited extension from the discovery deadline in order to 

conduct any additional discovery warranted by a favorable resolution of its appeal of the denial of its 

Motion to Compel (the appeal is currently pending in the First Circuit). In Plaintiff’s view, the 

sought after discovery is critical, as it relates to Plaintiff’s allegations of bias on the part of Mr. 

Witzel. 

The Parties therefore jointly request that the Court: (1) refer the case to VDRP; (2) stay the 

case until November 30, 2007, during which time the Parties will participate in non-binding 

mediation with a VDRP Neutral in an attempt to settle this matter; and (3) modify the Scheduling 

Order in the case. The VDRP mediation will be conducted in the Sacramento area, in accordance 

Case 2:06-cv-00532-FCD-KJM Document 52 Filed 08/22/07 Page 2 of 5
 

Case No. 2:06-CV-00532-FCD-KJM Stipulation and Order to Submit to VDRP 

3 and to Stay Proceedings

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

with Local Rule 16-271, except to the extent set forth in this Stipulation and Order. 

a. Each side shall submit a VDRP Statement/mediation brief as set forth in Local 

Rule 16-271, except that these Statements will contain settlement proposals 

and these Statements will not be served or exchanged on the other side. These 

Statements shall not exceed 15 pages (including the settlement proposals) and 

will be submitted only to the VDRP Neutral. 

b. The VDRP Neutral shall be selected as set forth in Local Rule 16-271 (if 

possible, the parties would like a list of three (3) potential neutrals to choose 

from). 

c. In person attendance of all persons necessary for each side to engage in good 

faith mediation shall be mandatory. In person attendance of all persons with 

settlement authority shall be mandatory, except that Plaintiff understands and 

agrees that the individual Defendants need not be present, but will be 

represented as set forth in Local Rule 16-271(l)(1)(B). Plaintiff further 

understands that any settlement proposal tentatively agreed to at the mediation 

would be subject to approval by the California State Board of Education and by 

the California Department of Education. 

The Parties request that the Court modify the Scheduling Order by resetting the deadlines in 

the case, and respectfully propose the following deadlines, subject to the Court’s schedule: 

Event Date 

Deadline for Completing Mediation 

and Joint VDRP Completion Report 

November 30, 2007 

Discovery Period Dec. 1 – Feb. 15, 2008 (due to 

holiday & vacation schedules) 

Expert Disclosure Deadline Feb. 29, 2008 

Supplemental (Rebuttal) Expert 

Disclosure 

March 14, 2008 

Expert Discovery Deadline April 11, 2008 

Dispositive Motion Cut-off July 3, 2008 

Case 2:06-cv-00532-FCD-KJM Document 52 Filed 08/22/07 Page 3 of 5
 

Case No. 2:06-CV-00532-FCD-KJM Stipulation and Order to Submit to VDRP 

4 and to Stay Proceedings

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

Final Pre-trial Conference Sept. 5, 2008 

Trial Date October 27, 2008 

 IT IS SO STIPULATED. 

Dated this 21st day of August, 2007 EDMUND G. BROWN JR. 

Attorney General of the State of California 

SUSAN E. SLAGER 

Supervising Deputy Attorney General 

/s/ Kara Read-Spangler 

KARA READ-SPANGLER 

Deputy Attorney General 

Attorneys for Defendants 

Dated this 21st day of August, 2007 BALASUBRAMANI LAW 

/s/ Venkat Balasubramani 

VENKAT BALASUBRAMANI 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

ORDER ON FOLLOWING PAGE 

 

Case 2:06-cv-00532-FCD-KJM Document 52 Filed 08/22/07 Page 4 of 5
 

Case No. 2:06-CV-00532-FCD-KJM Stipulation and Order to Submit to VDRP 

5 and to Stay Proceedings

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

ORDER

The court adopts the parties stipulation as noted above and REFERS to matter to this 

District’s Voluntary Resolute Dispute Program (“VDRP”) in accordance with Local Rule 16-271. 

The court finds good cause and modifies the Pretrial Scheduling as follows: 

 -The Discovery deadline is RESET from September 28, 2007 to February 15, 2008; 

-Designation of Expert Witnesses is RESET from October 12, 2007 to 

February 29, 2008 with rebuttal designations due March 20, 2008 and all expert 

discovery shall be completed by April 17, 2008; 

-The dispositive motion hearing deadline is RESET from February 22, 2008 to 

July 11, 2008; 

-The Final Pretrial Conference is RESET from May 2, 2008 to September 12, 2008 at 

2:30 p.m. and the Joint Pretrial Statement shall be filed on or before 

September 5, 2008; and 

-The Court Trial is RESET from July 22, 2008 to November 4, 2008 at 9:00 a.m. All 

other provisions of the Pretrial Scheduling order remain in effect. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: August 22, 2007 

Case 2:06-cv-00532-FCD-KJM Document 52 Filed 08/22/07 Page 5 of 5