Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02397/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02397-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination

---

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 - 

JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO MODIFY STATUS 

(PRETRIAL SCHEDULING) ORDER 

40200.1

HANSON BRIDGETT MARCUS VLAHOS & RUDY, LLP 

SUE ANN VAN DERMYDEN 166158 

ALISON P. SANDMAN 179193 

980 Ninth Street, Suite 1500 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

Telephone: (916) 442-3333 

Facsimile: (916) 442-2348 

svandermyden@hansonbridgett.com

asandman@hansonbridgett.com

Attorneys for Defendant RES-CARE California, Inc., 

d.b.a. RCCA Services 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

DAINA GLASSON, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

RES-CARE CALIFORNIA, INC., d.b.a. 

RCCA SERVICES, 

Defendant. 

No. 05-CV-02397 GEB-DAD 

JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER TO MODIFY STATUS 

(PRETRIAL SCHEDULING) ORDER 

Pursuant to the Court’s Local Rule, Rule 6-144 and Rules 16(b) and 29 of the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”), Plaintiff, DAINA GLASSON (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant, 

RES-CARE CALIFORNIA, INC., d.b.a. RCCA SERVICES (“Defendant”), through their 

respective counsel, hereby enter into the following joint stipulation and respectfully request that 

the Court modify the Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order as to initial expert witness disclosure and 

report requirements and the rebuttal expert disclosures. Good cause exists for seeking the 

modification, as follows: 

RECITALS 

1. The original Rule 16 Scheduling Order was filed on February 13, 2006, and 

amended by Court Order on June 8, 2006. 

2. Pursuant to the Court’s June 8th Order, the parties are to comply with Federal rule 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:05-cv-02397-GEB-DAD Document 21 Filed 08/17/06 Page 1 of 4
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 - 

JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO MODIFY STATUS 

(PRETRIAL SCHEDULING) ORDER 

40200.1

of Civil Procedure 26(a)’s initial expert witness disclosure and report requirements on or before 

September 8, 2006, and with the rebuttal expert disclosures authorized under the Rule on or 

before October 6, 2006. 

3. In an effort to resolve this matter, the parties have agreed to mediate this case. 

Mediation is scheduled for August 29, 2006 before Vivien Williamson. 

4. While the parties are mindful of their duty to comply with the dates set forth in the 

Amended Scheduling Order, they agree that an extension of the dates for expert disclosure will 

help to facilitate the resolution of this case. The parties have agreed to and jointly request that 

additional time be granted for the parties to identify relevant expert witnesses, and otherwise 

comply with the FRCP 26(a) requirements. This request is based upon good cause as follows: 

after completion of an initial round of depositions by both parties, the parties agreed to mediate 

this case, and agree that it is more efficient and cost effective for all parties to extend the report 

requirement dates in light of the upcoming mediation. The parties do not wish to expend 

resources on expert witness fees just prior to the mediation, and would rather direct those 

resources to a possible settlement. 

4. The modification of the expert discovery deadlines will not affect the trial date in 

this matter, which is set for June 26, 2007. The parties do not believe the modification will affect 

any of the other dates in the Amended Scheduling Order, dated June 8, 2006. 

5. The parties have agreed to and jointly respectfully request the Court continue the 

expert witness disclosure and report requirements in this matter from September 8, 2006 to 

October 6, 2006. 

6. The parties have agreed to and jointly respectfully request the Court continue the 

rebuttal expert disclosure requirements in this matter from October 6, 2006 to November 10, 

2006. 

7. The parties have agreed to and jointly respectfully request the discovery deadline 

of January 19, 2007 include the completion of expert witnesses, based on the parties’ agreement. 

/ / / 

/ / / 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:05-cv-02397-GEB-DAD Document 21 Filed 08/17/06 Page 2 of 4
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 - 

JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO MODIFY STATUS 

(PRETRIAL SCHEDULING) ORDER 

40200.1

STIPULATION AND ORDER 

NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION OF THE FOREGOING RECITALS, IT IS 

HEREBY STIPULATED by and between Plaintiff and Defendant, by and through their counsel 

of record, that the parties’ Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order be modified as follows: 

1. The parties’ deadline for expert witness disclosure and report requirements is 

continued to October 6, 2006. 

2. The parties’ deadline for rebuttal expert disclosures is continued to November 10, 

2006. 

3. The deadline for completion of discovery on January 19, 2007 will include the 

completion of expert witness discovery. 

 

IT IS SO STIPULATED. 

DATED: _________, 2006 LAW OFFICES OF ALAN ADELMAN 

By: /S/ _____

 Alan Adelman, Esq. 

 Attorney for Plaintiff, DAINA GLASSON 

DATED: _________, 2006 ELIZABETH S. MANCL 

By: /S/ 

 Elizabeth S. Mancl, Esq. 

 Attorney for Plaintiff, DAINA GLASSON 

DATED: _________, 2006 

HANSON, BRIDGETT, MARCUS, VLAHOS 

& RUDY, LLP 

By: /S/ 

 Sue Ann Van Dermyden, 

 Attorney for Defendant, 

 RES-CARE CALIFORNIA, INC., d.b.a 

 RCCA SERVICES 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:05-cv-02397-GEB-DAD Document 21 Filed 08/17/06 Page 3 of 4
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 - 

JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO MODIFY STATUS 

(PRETRIAL SCHEDULING) ORDER 

40200.1

The parties’ stipulation is adopted. However, the good cause issue is not reached 

since the parties’ request for modifications to the Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order can be 

made without adversely affecting the Court’s docket. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: August 16, 2006 

 /s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr. 

 GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR. 

 United States District Judge 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:05-cv-02397-GEB-DAD Document 21 Filed 08/17/06 Page 4 of 4