Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00190/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00190-3/pdf.json

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

---

- 1 – 

 

JOINT STIPULATION REGARDING GOOD CAUSE TO MODIFY EXPERT DISCLOSURE DATE IN SCHEDULING ORDER AND 

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

Fores Macko

A Professional Law Corporation

801 – 10th Street, Fifth Floor, Suite 105

Modesto, CA 95354

Telephone: (209) 527-9899

ROBERT P. FORES, SBN 119235 

FORES ■ MACKO 

A Professional Law Corporation 

801 – 10th Street, Fifth Floor, Suite 105 

Modesto, CA 95354 

(209) 527-9899 

(209) 527-2889 (Facsimile) 

Attorneys for Defendant 

CENTER FOR INDEPENDENT 

REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, INC. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SACRAMENTO DIVISION 

HANGER PROSTHETICS & ORTHOTICS, 

INC., 

 Plaintiff, 

vs. 

CENTER FOR INDEPENDENT 

REHABILITATIVE 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 & ORTHOTICS (“Plaintiff”) and defendant 

CENTER FOR INDEPENDENT REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, INC. (“Defendant CIRS”) 

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: 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:07-cv-00190-WBS-GGH Document 26 Filed 08/22/07 Page 1 of 4
- 2 – 

 

JOINT STIPULATION REGARDING GOOD CAUSE TO MODIFY EXPERT DISCLOSURE DATE IN SCHEDULING ORDER AND 

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

Fores Macko

A Professional Law Corporation

801 – 10th Street, Fifth Floor, Suite 105

Modesto, CA 95354

Telephone: (209) 527-9899

Plaintiff provides prosthetics and orthotic devices and services. Defendant CIRS operates 

a patient care center in Lodi, California. Plaintiff contends that defendant improperly solicited 

its patients and referral sources, 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, defendant has propounded discovery that 

seeks disclosure of the patients and referral sources that plaintiff claims were wrongly solicited, 

as well as the financial records for the patient care center in Lodi, California, so that defendant 

CIRS 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. 

After entry of the protective order, counsel for plaintiff and defendant CIRS met and 

conferred regarding the exchange of sensitive information and documents by each party. Those 

records have not yet been produced to each party. Arrangements are being made by each party 

to make the documents available to the other. 

Defendant CIRS is requesting the same scheduling to which individual defendants and 

plaintiff have stipulated. Defendant CIRS does not believe it can comply with the expert 

disclosure deadline in the Scheduling Order without having a reasonable opportunity for its 

counsel and potential experts(s) to review information not yet produced. At the request of 

defendant, plaintiff kindly agreed to grant them a two week extension to permit such review and 

analysis. In return, defendant CIRS has 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 

defendant CIRS. 

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

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:07-cv-00190-WBS-GGH Document 26 Filed 08/22/07 Page 2 of 4
- 3 – 

 

JOINT STIPULATION REGARDING GOOD CAUSE TO MODIFY EXPERT DISCLOSURE DATE IN SCHEDULING ORDER AND 

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

Fores Macko

A Professional Law Corporation

801 – 10th Street, Fifth Floor, Suite 105

Modesto, CA 95354

Telephone: (209) 527-9899

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

extension, they believe 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. 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 Defendant CIRS 

Rebuttal Expert September 21, 2007 October 5, 2007 

Disclosures 

Discovery December 14, 2007 Unchanged 

Cut-Off 

Last Hearing February 15, 2008 Unchanged 

Date for Motions 

Final Pretrial May 5, 2008 Unchanged 

Conference 

Trial Date July 8, 2008 Unchanged 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:07-cv-00190-WBS-GGH Document 26 Filed 08/22/07 Page 3 of 4
- 4 – 

 

JOINT STIPULATION REGARDING GOOD CAUSE TO MODIFY EXPERT DISCLOSURE DATE IN SCHEDULING ORDER AND 

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

Fores Macko

A Professional Law Corporation

801 – 10th Street, Fifth Floor, Suite 105

Modesto, CA 95354

Telephone: (209) 527-9899

DATED: August 17, 2007 FORES▪MACKO 

 A Professional Law Corporation 

 By /s/ Robert P. Fores_______________________ 

 Attorney for Defendant 

 Center for Independent Rehabilitative 

 Services, Inc. 

 

DATED: August 17, 2007 FOLEY & LARDNER, LLP 

 By:/s/ Aaron M. Schwarcz (authorized on 8/17/07)

 Attorney for Plaintiff 

 Hanger Prosthetics & Orthotics, Inc. 

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED 

DATED: August 21, 2007 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:07-cv-00190-WBS-GGH Document 26 Filed 08/22/07 Page 4 of 4