Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02248/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02248-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act

---

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 to Continue Discovery Deadlines and Order to Continue Discovery 

USDC Eastern District of California Case No. CIV.S-05-02248 FCD DAD 

JACKSON LEWIS LLP 

MIA FARBER (SBN 131467) 

JAMES T. JONES (SBN 167967) 

NATHAN W. AUSTIN (SBN 219672) 

801 K Street, Suite 2300 

Sacramento, California 95814 

Telephone: (916) 341-0404 

Facsimile: (916) 341-0141 

Attorneys for Defendant 

DESTINATION TAHOE HOTEL, INC., 

(erroneously sued herein as DESTINATION 

HOTELS & RESORTS) 

THOMAS E. DUCKWORTH (SBN 152369 ) 

MARK C. PETERS (SBN 160611) 

DUCKWORTH & PETERS, LLP 

235 Montgomery Street, Suite 1010 

San Francisco, California 94104 

Telephone: (415) 433-0333 

Facsimile: (415) 449-6556 

Email: tom@dpllplaw.com

mark@dpllplaw.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

REBECCA COBAIN, AMANDA SPITSEN, and 

AMELIA ESPINOZA 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

REBECCA COBAIN, AMANDA 

SPITSEN and AMELIA ESPINOZA, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

DESTINATION HOTELS & RESORTS, 

and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, 

Defendants. 

Case No. CIV.S-05-02248 FCD DAD 

STIPULATION TO CONTINUE 

DISCOVERY DEADLINES AND ORDER TO 

CONTINUE DISCOVERY 

“AS MODIFIED” 

Complaint Filed: September 20, 2005 

Removed to Federal Court: November 4, 2005 

Trial Date: August 14, 2007

The parties to this action, defendant Destination Tahoe Hotel, Inc. (“Defendant”), 

and plaintiffs Rebecca Cobain, Amanda Spitsen, and Amelia Espinoza (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), 

by and through their respective counsel of record, enter into this stipulation based on the 

following facts: 

Case 2:05-cv-02248-FCD-DAD Document 27 Filed 01/31/07 Page 1 of 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 

2 

Stipulation to Continue Discovery Deadlines and Order to Continue Discovery 

USDC Eastern District of California Case No. CIV.S-05-02248 FCD DAD 

WHEREAS, the discovery cut-off date in this matter is February 16, 2007; 

WHEREAS, the parties previously mediated this matter with Judge Raul Ramirez, 

but were unable to then resolve the matter; 

WHEREAS, as a result of the first mediation with Judge Ramirez, the parties 

agreed to initially focus discovery on a single issue (successor-in-interest status under the Family 

Medical Leave Act) in order to fully and more effectively explore the possibility of settlement, 

and to subsequently complete discovery should settlement discussions not thereafter resolve the 

matter, presently set for trial on August 14, 2007; 

WHEREAS, the parties completed discovery related to the successor-in-interest 

issue and returned to mediation before Judge Ramirez on January 4, 2007; 

WHEREAS, the mediation before Judge Ramirez did not result in settlement on 

January 4, 2007, but the parties did not close the mediation and departed with the understanding 

that they may resume mediation through Judge Ramirez at some point in the future; 

WHEREAS, trial is set for August 14, 2007, and no other scheduled dates other 

than the discovery cut-off need to be adjusted; 

WHEREAS, the parties believe that good cause exists to grant a continuance of 

the discovery cut-off date because the parties are cooperating and making progress with 

discovery, but some scheduling issues are arising, and certain witnesses have moved out of the 

area making scheduling of their deposition s more difficult; 

WHEREAS, Plaintiff Amanda Spitsen is due to give birth in January or early 

February and the parties wish to accommodate her pregnancy and childbirth by postponing her 

deposition until not later than March 1, 2007; and 

WHEREAS, the parties believe it would be cost effective to disclose expert 

witnesses and conduct expert discovery after the last day to hear dispositive motions (April 13, 

2007), rather than to incur those costs unnecessarily if Plaintiff’s claims or any of them were to 

resolve at summary judgment/adjudication; 

THEREFORE, THE PARTIES, BY AND THROUGH THEIR 

RESPECTIVE COUNSEL OF RECORD, HEREBY STIPULATE AS FOLLOWS: 

Case 2:05-cv-02248-FCD-DAD Document 27 Filed 01/31/07 Page 2 of 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 

3 

Stipulation to Continue Discovery Deadlines and Order to Continue Discovery 

USDC Eastern District of California Case No. CIV.S-05-02248 FCD DAD 

The current discovery cut-off date of February 16, 2007 shall be continued to 

March 16, 2007; the date for disclosure of expert witnesses shall be May 13, 2007; expert 

discovery shall close on June 13, 2007; and all other dates to remain as presently scheduled by the 

Court. 

IT IS SO STIPULATED. 

DATED: January ___, 2007 DUCKWORTH & PETERS, LLP 

By: /s/ 

Thomas E. Duckworth 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

REBECCA COBAIN, AMANDA 

SPITSEN, and AMELIA ESPINOZA 

DATED: January ___, 2007 JACKSON LEWIS LLP 

By: /s/ 

James T. Jones 

Attorneys for Defendant 

DESTINATION TAHOE HOTEL, INC. 

ORDER

 Good cause appearing, IT IS HERBY ORDERED that the discovery cut-off date of 

February 16, 2007 is continued to March 16, 2007; the date for disclosure of expert witnesses 

shall be May 14, 2007; and all expert discovery shall close on June 13, 2007. All other deadlines 

shall remain as set. Absent a properly filed and noticed motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16, the court 

shall not hear any dispositive motion beyond the current dispositive motion deadline of 

April 13, 2007. 

DATED: January 31, 2007 

Case 2:05-cv-02248-FCD-DAD Document 27 Filed 01/31/07 Page 3 of 3