Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-02294/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-02294-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

Stip. re Disc. & EOT re Resp. Summ. J.; [Proposed] Order (C 16-2294 JST (PR))

XAVIER BECERRA

Attorney General of California

MARISA Y. KIRSCHENBAUER

Supervising Deputy Attorney General

ROBERT W. HENKELS

Deputy Attorney General

State Bar No. 255410

455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000

San Francisco, CA 94102-7004

Telephone: (415) 703-5836

Fax: (415) 703-5843

E-mail: Robert.Henkels@doj.ca.gov

Attorneys for Defendants

A. Adams, E. Bridgnell, D. Bright, E. DelaRosa, J. 

Dunlap, L. Gamboa, K. Kumar, F. Mejia, Orfield, E. 

Talanoa, J. Turner, F. Tuvera, M. Ulloa, J. 

Villafuerte, and T. Wy

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

ALFREDO GONZALEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

F. TUVERA, et al.,

Defendants.

C 16-2294 JST (PR)

STIPULATION REGARDING 

DISCOVERY DISAGREEMENT AND 

FOR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR 

PLAINTIFF TO RESPOND TO MOTION 

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; 

[PROPOSED] ORDER

Judge: The Honorable Jon S. Tigar

Trial Date: N/A

Action Filed: April 27, 2016

Case 3:16-cv-02294-JST Document 44 Filed 04/16/18 Page 1 of 5
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

Stip. re Disc. & EOT re Resp. Summ. J.; [Proposed] Order (C 16-2294 JST (PR))

Plaintiff Alfredo Gonzalez, an inmate at Salinas Valley State Prison in pro se, and

Defendants A. Adams, E. Bridgnell, D. Bright, E. DelaRosa, J. Dunlap, L. Gamboa, K. Kumar, F. 

Mejia, Orfield, E. Talanoa, J. Turner, F. Tuvera, M. Ulloa, J. Villafuerte, and T. Wy, by and 

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

1. Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment challenging Plaintiff’s claim that 

Defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth 

Amendment. Plaintiff wishes to view all available discovery before preparing his response. 

2. The parties are currently working to resolve their discovery disagreement. Plaintiff 

has filed a motion to compel production of discovery against Defendant Tuvera. Defense counsel 

provided Plaintiff with over 1500 medical records, and mistakenly believed that this resolved the 

disagreement. Plaintiff and Defense counsel have discussed this issue on numerous occasions, 

most recently on April 11 and 13, 2018. On April 11, 2018, Plaintiff informed Defense counsel 

that he sought additional records, and that he would provide Defense counsel with a letter 

specifying those record. Unfortunately, Plaintiff became preoccupied with unrelated but 

important matters, and was unable to provide Defense counsel with that letter. 

3. Both parties agree and stipulate that Plaintiff should have a full and fair opportunity 

to conduct discovery before responding to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, and that it 

is in both parties’ interest and the Court’s for the parties to have further opportunity to resolve 

their current disagreement. 

4. The parties agree and request that Plaintiff’s deadline to file a response to 

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment be extended forty-five days, until June 28, 2018, and 

for additional time to resolve their discovery dispute. 

5. The parties have agreed to discuss this issue again on Monday, April 23, 2018. At 

that time, the parties shall address whether they can resolve their discovery disagreement, whether 

they should request to be referred to a magistrate judge for assistance, or whether they shall seek 

further guidance from this Court. 

5. Plaintiff’s deadline to file a response to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment 

has previously been extended three times.

Case 3:16-cv-02294-JST Document 44 Filed 04/16/18 Page 2 of 5
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

Stip. re Disc. & EOT re Resp. Summ. J.; [Proposed] Order (C 16-2294 JST (PR))

6. This request for an extension of time will not affect the time management in this case, 

as it is not presently scheduled for trial.

IT IS SO STIPULATED. 

Dated: April 16, 2018 Respectfully submitted,

XAVIER BECERRA 

Attorney General of California

MARISA Y. KIRSCHENBAUER

Supervising Deputy Attorney General

/s/ Robert W. Henkels

ROBERT W. HENKELS

Deputy Attorney General

Attorneys for Defendants

Dated: ________, 2018 Plaintiff Alfredo Gonzalez, in pro se

[Signature on Following Page]

Alfredo Gonzalez

Case 3:16-cv-02294-JST Document 44 Filed 04/16/18 Page 3 of 5
Case 3:16-cv-02294-JST Document 44 Filed 04/16/18 Page 4 of 5
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

Stip. re Disc. & EOT re Resp. Summ. J.; [Proposed] Order (C 16-2294 JST (PR))

ORDER OF THE COURT

The Court, having read the parties’ stipulation, and good cause appearing, hereby GRANTS 

the parties’ request for extensions of time. Plaintiff Alfredo Gonzalez’s may file a response to 

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on or before June 28, 2018. Defendants may file a 

reply brief no later than 14 days after the opposition is filed. Should the parties fail to resolve 

their discovery dispute, they shall so advise the Court in a joint letter consistent with this Court’s 

Standing Order for All Civil Cases. 

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: _______________________ ____________________________________

DISTRICT COURT JUDGE JON S. TIGAR

SF2016103881

Gonzalez - Stip re Disc. EOT Resp. Summ. J. (final) doc.doc

April 16, 2018

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

 Judge Jon S. Tigar 

Case 3:16-cv-02294-JST Document 44 Filed 04/16/18 Page 5 of 5