Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01488/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01488-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1343 Violation of Civil Rights

---

STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING USE OF DISCOVERY FROM RELATED ACTION 

1

A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 

Nancy J. Sheehan, SBN 109419 

Michael W. Pott, SBN 186156 

Brooke A. Dohmen, SBN 242815 

350 University Avenue, Suite 200 

Sacramento, California 95825 

(916) 929-1481 (facsimile) (916) 927-3706 

Attorneys for Defendant 

James C. Sturdevant, State Bar No. 94551 

Mark T. Johnson, State Bar No. 76904) 

Monique Olivier, State Bar No. 190385 

THE STURDEVANT LAW FIRM 

475 Sansome Street, Suite 1750 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Telephone: (415) 477-2410 Facsimile: (415) 477-2420 

Debra Smith, State Bar No. 147863 

Noreen Farrell, State Bar No. 191600 

EQUAL RIGHTS ADVOCATES 

1663 Mission Street, Suite 250 

San Francisco, CA 94103 

Telephone: (415) 621-0672 Facsimile: (415) 621-6744 

Kristen Galles, State Bar No. 148740 

EQUITY LEGAL 

10 Rosecrest Avenue 

Alexandria, VA 22301 

Telephone: (703) 683-4491 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

KELSEY BRUST, et al. 

 Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF 

CALIFORNIA AT DAVIS, et al. 

 Defendants. 

 CASE NO.: 2:07-CV-1488 FCD EFB 

STIPULATION AND ORDER 

REGARDING USE OF DISCOVERY 

FROM RELATED ACTION 

 The Court has issued a Related Case Order, noting that the cases of Brust, et. al. v. Regents 

of the University of California, et. al. (Eastern District case number 2:07-CV-1488 FCD/EFB) and 

Case 2:07-cv-01488-FCD-EFB Document 43 Filed 01/10/08 Page 1 of 5
STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING USE OF DISCOVERY FROM RELATED ACTION 

2

Mansourian et. al. v. Regents of the University of California, et. al. (Eastern District case number 

2:03-cv-2591 FCD/EFB) involved many of the same defendants and are based on the same or 

similar claims and questions of law and fact. The parties agree that the claims and legal issues 

asserted in the two cases are related in various aspects. A significant amount of discovery has 

been conducted in the Mansourian et. al. v. Regents of the University of California, et. al case, as 

of the date of this stipulation. In order to avoid duplication and waste of time, money and travel, 

the parties, through their counsel of record, stipulate and agree as follows: 

1. Aside from the exception noted in paragraph 1A, any documents produced in discovery in 

the Mansourian et. al. v. Regents of the University of California, et. al case may be used to 

prosecute or defend in the Brust, et. al. v. Regents of the University of California, et. al case, 

subject to the Federal Rules of Evidence. The participation of the Defendant in entering into this 

stipulation does not constitute an agreement that any documents in the possession of Plaintiffs’ 

counsel by virtue of their representation of the plaintiffs in the Mansourian et. al. v. Regents of the 

University of California, et. al case are admissible in the Brust, et. al. v. Regents of the University 

of California, et. al case. 

A. Paragraph 1 does not apply to any documents that were produced by the defendants in 

the case entitled Burch v. Regents of the University of California, et. al. (Eastern 

District case number S-04-38 WBS/GGH) pursuant to the order of the court in that 

case issued on August 31, 2005 (docket number 114) including documents identified 

by Bates numbers UC 60, UC 80-87, UC 89-91, UC 94, UC 127-129, UC 152, 

UC 165-167, UC 199-200, UC 264-265, UC 271-273, UC 294-296, UC 301-

302, UC 304-305, UC 308-310, UC 328, UC 333-335, UC 342-343, UC 389-

391, UC 414-419, UC 421-428, UC 552-559, UC 856-864, UC 866-869, UC 

871-876, UC 885-886, UC 936-938, UC 958, UC 964-966, UC 975-981, UC 

983-986, UC 993-995, UC 998-1009, UC 1073-1078, UC 1092-1093, UC 1100-

1108, UC 1216, UC 1218-1220, UC 1254-1263, UC 1266-1272, UC 1290-1293, 

UC 1310-1313, UC 1320, UC 1322-1327, UC 1368-1384, UC 1389-1393, UC 

1397, UC 1408-1410, UC 1414-1420, UC 1428-1429, UC 1434-1440, UC 1459-

1462, UC 1680-1681, UC 1708-1719, UC 2073-2081, UC 2085, UC 2095-2096, 

UC 2111-2140, UC 2142-2143, UC 2228, UC 2242-2247, UC 2302, UC 2347-

2353, UC 2364-2369, UC 2375-2377, UC 2417-2418, UC 2511-2513, UC 2528, 

Case 2:07-cv-01488-FCD-EFB Document 43 Filed 01/10/08 Page 2 of 5
STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING USE OF DISCOVERY FROM RELATED ACTION 

3

UC 2531-2534, UC 2538-2541, UC 2546-2549, UC 2618-2619, UC 2624-2644, 

UC 2658, UC 2743-2747, UC 2752, UC 2786-2787, UC 2797-2800, UC 2804, 

UC 2806-2807, UC 2864, UC 3698, UC 4188, UC 4208-4211, UC 4223-4224, 

UC 4232-4233, UC 4254-4255, UC 4263-4264, UC 4282-4288, UC 4291-4293, 

UC 4295-4298, UC 4305-4313, UC 4318-4325, UC 4328-4331, UC 4334-4339, 

UC 4349-4350, UC 4358-4407, UC 4501-4504, UC 4506-4510, UC 4514-4539, 

UC 4546-4624, UC 4626-4738, RPD1.0004-0005, RPD1.0120, RPD1.0135-

0136, RPD1.0449-0474, RPD1.0478-0488, RPD1.0495-0500, RPD1.0510-0512, 

RPD1.0516, RPD1.0522-0523, RPD1.0542-0546, RPD1.0549-0561, 

RPD1.0577-0588, RPD1.0605-0609, RPD1.0611, RPD1.0620-0652, 

RPD1.0665-0679, RPD1.0694-0700, RPD1.0702-0706, RPD1.0713-0725, 

RPD1.1233-1244, RPD1.1246-1247, RPD1.1250-1258, RPD1.1285, 

RPD1.1628-1633, RPD1.2269-2271, RPD1.2524-2533, RPD1.2535, 

RPD1.2542, RPD1.2549-2550, RPD1.2588-2591, RPD1.2596-2605, and 

RPD1.2627-2632. 

2. The participation of Plaintiffs in entering into this stipulation does not constitute a waiver 

of any arguments regarding any documents in the possession of Plaintiffs’ counsel, including the 

documents listed in paragraph 1A, including the argument that documents are previously 

produced, privileges are waived and the documents are admissible. Similarly, by entering into this 

stipulation Defendant does not waive any arguments pertaining to the application of privilege, use 

and/or admissibility of such documents. The terms and conditions of the stipulated protective 

order entitled “Stipulated Protective Order re: Documents Produced Pursuant To Order Entered 

August 30, 2005” in the Burch v. Regents of the University of California, et.al. case shall continue 

to apply to the documents listed in paragraph 1A. 

3. If a party (including employees of a party) in the Brust, et. al. v. Regents of the University 

of California, et. al case is served with a request for production of documents pursuant to F.R.C.P. 

34 or 45, and all or some of the documents responsive to the request have been previously 

produced in discovery in the Mansourian et. al. v. Regents of the University of California, et. al

case, the responding party may opt not to produce those documents again in the Brust, et. al. v. 

Regents of the University of California, et. al case, and instead identify responsive documents in 

Case 2:07-cv-01488-FCD-EFB Document 43 Filed 01/10/08 Page 3 of 5
STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING USE OF DISCOVERY FROM RELATED ACTION 

4

that party’s written response to the document request by Bates number. All parties to this 

Stipulation agree that they will tailor document requests such that the party responding to the 

request will not be unduly burdened in sorting through the more than 60,000 documents that have 

been produced in the Burch v. Regents of the University of California, et. al. case and the 

Mansourian et. al. v. Regents of the University of California, et. al case in order to determine 

which documents are responsive to requests made in the Brust, et. al. v. Regents of the University 

of California, et. al case. 

4. The parties may use deposition testimony of witnesses deposed in the Mansourian et. al. v. 

Regents of the University of California, et. al case for the prosecution or defense of the Brust, et. 

al. v. Regents of the University of California, et. al case. 

5. The fact that a witness or a party was deposed in the Mansourian et. al. v. Regents of the 

University of California, et. al case does not preclude any party from choosing to depose that same 

witness or party in the Brust, et. al. v. Regents of the University of California, et. al case, nor does 

it shorten the aggregated time allowed to depose a witness. Counsel for both sides agree that they 

will make a good faith effort to avoid unnecessary duplication of questioning, should any party or 

witness who was previously deposed in the Mansourian et. al. v. Regents of the University of 

California, et. al case also be deposed in the Brust, et. al. v. Regents of the University of 

California, et. al case. 

6. Interrogatory responses, requests for admission and other discovery are not merged 

pursuant to this stipulation, unless otherwise allowed under the Federal Rules or unless the parties 

enter into a later stipulation stating otherwise. 

7. The agreement pertaining to use of documents and deposition testimony, as set forth in 

Paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4 of this Stipulation, also applies to documents produced in the Burch v. 

Regents of the University of California, et. al. case (with the exception noted in Paragraph 1A) and 

depositions taken in the Burch v. Regents of the University of California, et. al. case. Through the 

Stipulation and Order Regarding Merger of Some Discovery and Regarding Discovery of 

Financial Information; Stipulation and Protective Order Regarding Personal Information which 

was lodged in both the Mansourian and Burch actions, the discovery undertaken in the 

Mansourian action and the Burch action were also subject to a stipulation and order regarding 

merger of discovery. (See Exhibit A, attached). 

8. Nothing in this stipulation shall affect any party’s right to object to the admissibility of any 

merged deposition testimony or document. Objections made during deposition testimony in the 

Case 2:07-cv-01488-FCD-EFB Document 43 Filed 01/10/08 Page 4 of 5
STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING USE OF DISCOVERY FROM RELATED ACTION 

5

Burch v. Regents of the University of California, et. al. case and the Mansourian et. al. v. Regents 

of the University of California, et. al case shall be presumed made in the Brust, et. al. v. Regents of 

the University of California, et. al case, unless otherwise noted. 

DATED: January 8, 2008 THE STURDEVANT LAW FIRM 

 /s/ Monique Olivier (as authorized on 01/08/08) 

 MONIQUE OLIVIER 

 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

DATED: January 8, 2008 EQUAL RIGHTS ADVOCATES 

 /s/ Noreen Farrell (as authorized on 01/08/08) 

 NOREEN FARRELL 

 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

DATED: January 8, 2008 PORTER SCOTT 

 A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 

 /s/ Nancy J. Sheehan____________________

 NANCY J. SHEEHAN 

 Attorneys for Defendant 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 9, 2008 

Case 2:07-cv-01488-FCD-EFB Document 43 Filed 01/10/08 Page 5 of 5