Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-04618/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-04618-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 20:1400 Civil Rights of Handicapped Child

---

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

Stipulation and [Proposed] Order to Continue Date for Defendant to Reply to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Conduct 

Discovery and to Supplement the Record; SM et al v. Cupertino Union School District; C05 4618 JF 1 

KATHRYN ELIZABETH DOBEL, State Bar No. 85530 

LAW OFFICE OF KATHRYN E. DOBEL 

2026 Delaware Street 

Berkeley, California 94709 

Phone: (510) 548-2004 

Facsimile: (510) 843-0833 

Email: spedlaw@comcast.net 

Attorney for Plaintiffs 

ELIZABETH A. ESTES, State Bar No. 173680 

AMY R. LEVINE, State Bar No. 160743 

MILLER BROWN & DANNIS 

71 Stevenson Street, 19th Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

Telephone: (415) 543-4111 

Facsimile: (415) 543-4384 

Attorneys for Defendant

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

In the matter of 

SM, by his parents 

SUNIL MENON and BINDU MENON 

and SUNIL MENON and BINDU 

MENON, individually 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

CUPERTINO UNION SCHOOL 

DISTRICT 

Defendant. 

Case No. C05 4618 JF 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER TO CONTINUE DATE FOR 

DEFENDANT TO REPLY TO 

PLAINTIFFSí MOTION TO CONDUCT 

DISCOVERY AND TO SUPPLEMENT 

THE RECORD 

Date: June 2, 2006 

Time: 9:00a.m. 

Dept.: Courtroom 3, 5th Floor 

Judge: Honorable Jeremy Fogel 

First paper filed: November 10, 2005 

**E-filed 4/27/06**

Case 5:05-cv-04618-JF Document 28 Filed 04/27/06 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

Stipulation and [Proposed] Order to Continue Date for Defendant to Reply to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Conduct 

Discovery and to Supplement the Record; SM et al v. Cupertino Union School District; C05 4618 JF 2 

 On Friday April 21, 2006, at or shortly after 4:30p.m. Kathryn Dobel’s staff attempted to 

e-file SM's Motion to Conduct Discovery and to Supplement the Record and supporting 

declarations and Memorandum of Points and Authorities, scheduled for hearing on June 2, 2006. 

Staff had experienced difficulty with online service earlier in the day and had not been able to 

check the e-filing page before 4:30 p.m. When staff attempted to log onto the ECF/Pacer 

website at or shortly after 4:30 p.m., staff discovered that the system was shut down through 

Sunday evening and that documents could not be filed. By this time there was no possibility of 

driving to the San Jose Courthouse to hand-file the documents. Staff contacted Ms. Dobel who 

instructed staff to fax the Motion pleading immediately to Ms. Levine, counsel for defendants, so 

she could be served. The document was erroneously faxed to Ms. Levine’s previous business 

fax number. Staff sent to the Court by Federal Express, to arrive Monday morning, April 24, 

2006, the Court's “Chambers Copy” along with a letter to the filing clerk explaining the inability 

to e-file at 4:30 p.m. 

 Staff e-filed the Motion and related documents as early as possible after 9:00a.m. 

Monday, April 24, 2006 but experienced delays in the ECF/Pacer system processing the filings. 

Ms. Levine indicated that her office experienced similar delays in downloading the documents 

from the ECF/Pacer system until late in the afternoon on Monday. This problem was noted on 

the ECF/Pacer system. 

Due to the circumstances described above, the parties hereto, by and through their counsel of 

record, hereby stipulate that the date on which Defendant’s Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion to 

Supplement the Record shall be filed and served, previously scheduled for May 5, 2006, shall be 

set for May 9, 2006, with all other dates in the briefing schedule to remain the same as 

previously scheduled. 

Case 5:05-cv-04618-JF Document 28 Filed 04/27/06 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

Stipulation and [Proposed] Order to Continue Date for Defendant to Reply to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Conduct 

Discovery and to Supplement the Record; SM et al v. Cupertino Union School District; C05 4618 JF 3 

IT IS SO STIPULATED: 

Dated: April 25, 2006 

___________/s/__________________ 

Kathryn E. Dobel 

Attorney for Plaintiffs 

___________/s/__________________ 

MILLER BROWN & DANNIS 

Amy R. Levine 

Attorneys for Defendant 

ORDER 

Having considered the stipulation of the parties herein, and good cause appearing therefore, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the date on which Defendant’s Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion 

to Supplement the Record shall be filed and served, previously scheduled for May 5, 2006, shall 

be set for May 9, 2006. 

Dated: April _____, 2006 ________________________________________ 

 HON. JEREMY FOGEL 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

27

Case 5:05-cv-04618-JF Document 28 Filed 04/27/06 Page 3 of 3