Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00190/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00190-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Fiduciary Duty

---

DOWNEY BRAND LLP 

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 

871371.1 1 

JOINT STIPULATION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER 

DOWNEY BRAND LLP 

KEVIN M. SEIBERT (Bar No. 119356) 

MEGHAN M. BAKER (Bar No. 243765) 

3425 Brookside Road, Suite A 

Stockton, CA 95219-1757 

Telephone: (209) 473-6450 

Facsimile: (209) 473-6455 

Attorneys for Defendants 

David Weymouth, an Individual 

Rosalie Carbajal, an Individual 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SACRAMENTO DIVISION 

HANGER PROSTHETICS & 

ORTHOTICS, INC., 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CENTER FOR INDEPENDENT 

REHABILITIVE SERVICES, INC., 

a California corporation; DAVID 

WEYMOUTH, an individual; 

ROSALIE CARBAJAL; an 

individual; AND DOES 1-15, 

Defendants. 

Case No. 2:07-CV-00190-WBS-GGH 

JOINT STIPULATION REGARDING GOOD 

CAUSE TO MODIFY EXPERT DISCLOSURE 

DATE IN SCHEDULING ORDER AND 

[PROPOSED] ORDER THEREON 

Plaintiff Hanger Prosthetics and Orthotics (“Plaintiff”), Defendant David Weymouth and 

Defendant Rosalie Carbajal (collectively “Individual Defendants”) hereby jointly stipulate and 

seek leave pursuant to Rule 16(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to briefly extend an 

initial expert disclosure deadline and the rebuttal expert disclosure deadline in the Status (Pretrial 

Scheduling) Order, filed by the Court on February 15, 2007 (hereinafter the “Scheduling Order”). 

The stipulation and requested extension by the parties would not alter or otherwise affect the 

dates scheduled for the trial, the final pre-trial conference, or the motion filing deadline. Good 

cause exists for this request as follows: 

Case 2:07-cv-00190-WBS-GGH Document 25 Filed 08/20/07 Page 1 of 4
DOWNEY BRAND LLP 

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 

871371.1 2 

JOINT STIPULATION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER 

Plaintiff provides prosthetics and orthotic devices and services. Individual Defendants are 

former employees of Plaintiff who worked at one of its patient care centers located in Lodi, 

California. Plaintiff contends, inter alia, that Individual Defendants, while still in its 

employment, improperly solicited its patients and referral sources for Defendant Center for 

Rehabilitive Services causing Plaintiff to sustain financial losses. 

Both parties have propounded discovery that requests disclosure of certain information 

and documents that constitute, reflect or disclose confidential, competitively sensitive, and/or 

proprietary information. Pertinent to this stipulation, Individual Defendants have propounded 

discovery that seeks disclosure of the patients and referral sources that Plaintiff claims Individual 

Defendants wrongfully solicited, as well as the financial records for the patient care center in 

Lodi, California, so that Defendants can assess the basis for the damages claimed by Plaintiff. 

To permit the parties to produce such sensitive information while safeguarding its 

confidentiality, Plaintiff and Defendants agreed to enter into a stipulated protective order. 

Magistrate Judge Hollows approved the order on Friday, July 27, 2007. Prior to entry of the 

protective order, no party had produced confidential documents due to patient privacy concerns 

and the confidential, competitively sensitive, and/or proprietary nature of the requested 

information. 

Immediately upon entry of the protective order, counsel for Plaintiff and Individual 

Defendants met and conferred regarding the exchange of sensitive information and documents. 

The parties agreed to exchange the documents and information on Wednesday, August 1, 2007. 

To date, Individual Defendants have produced all responsive documents that they believe to be 

within their possession, custody or control. Plaintiff has produced many responsive documents, 

and has agreed to produce additional non-privileged, responsive documents after completing its 

review of corporate records and correspondence. Defendant CIRS has not produced any 

documents, which Plaintiff believes impacts its ability to respond to discovery propounded by 

Individual Defendants. 

Counsel for Plaintiff and Individual Defendants have met and conferred regarding all of 

these matters and have reached an informal agreement regarding outstanding discovery. 

Case 2:07-cv-00190-WBS-GGH Document 25 Filed 08/20/07 Page 2 of 4
DOWNEY BRAND LLP 

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 

871371.1 3 

JOINT STIPULATION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER 

Individual Defendants believe they cannot comply with the current expert disclosure 

deadline in the Scheduling Order without having additional time to review the documents already 

produced by Plaintiff, as well as a reasonable opportunity for their counsel and potential expert(s) 

to review and analyze the documents and other information not yet produced. At the request of 

Individual Defendants, Plantiff kindly agreed to grant them a two week extension to permit such 

review and analysis. In return, Individual Defendants have agreed to extend the deadline for 

disclosure of rebuttal experts by two weeks so that Plaintiff will have adequate time to rebut the 

expert disclosure by Individual Defendants. 

To date, the parties have only requested one brief, two week extension of the expert 

disclosure deadlines in the Scheduling Order. At the time the parties requested the initial 

extension, they believed two weeks would be sufficient to produce and review documents and 

other information. Despite the fact that the parties have acted diligently to produce these 

documents and information, and have acted diligently to comply with the deadlines in the 

Scheduling Order, because of matters that could not have been reasonably foreseen or anticipated, 

a modification of that Order has become necessary.1 Accordingly, the parties respectfully request 

that the Court modify the existing Scheduling Order by briefly extending the following two dates 

therein as follows: 

 Existing Date Proposed Date

Initial Expert August 17, 2007 August 31, 2007 

Disclosures 

by Individual Defendants 

Rebuttal Expert September 21, 2007 Ocotber 5, 2007 

Disclosures 

Discovery December 14, 2007 Unchanged 

Cutoff 

Last Hearing February 15, 2008 Unchanged 

Date for Motions 

Final Pretrial May 5, 2008 Unchanged 

Conference 

 

1

 Defendants did not participate in the filing of a Joint Status Report because they had not yet appeared in the action 

at the time designated by the Court for filing. 

Case 2:07-cv-00190-WBS-GGH Document 25 Filed 08/20/07 Page 3 of 4
DOWNEY BRAND LLP 

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 

871371.1 4 

JOINT STIPULATION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER 

Trial Date July 8, 2008 Unchanged 

DATED: August 16, 2007 DOWNEY BRAND LLP 

By: /s/ Meghan M. Baker 

MEGHAN M. BAKER 

Attorney for Defendants 

David Weymouth 

Rosalie Carbajal 

DATED: August 16, 2007 FOLEY & LARDNER LLP 

By: /s/ Aaron M. Schwarcz (as authorized on 8/16/07) 

AARON M. SCHWARCZ 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

Hanger Prosthetics & Orthotics, Inc. 

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August 17, 2007 

Case 2:07-cv-00190-WBS-GGH Document 25 Filed 08/20/07 Page 4 of 4