Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02342/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02342-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination)

---

-1-

STIPULATION AND REQUEST FOR AN ORDER TEMPORARILY STAYING THE PROCEEDINGS 

PENDING FINAL DETERMINATION OF PLAINTIFF’S APPEAL FROM HER SEPARATION FROM 

EMPLOYMENT 

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

CAROLEE G. KILDUFF, ESQ., SB No. 107232 (SPACE BELOW FOR FILING STAMP ONLY)

CORI R. SARNO, ESQ., SB No. 230559 

ANGELO, KILDAY & KILDUFF 

Attorneys at Law 

601 University Avenue, Suite 150 

Sacramento, CA 95825 

Telephone: (916) 564-6100 

Telecopier: (916) 564-6263 

Attorneys for Defendants COUNTY OF YOLO, 

YOLO COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, 

ED PRIETO and KEN FISCH 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

RENEE ODETTE LANCASTER 

 Plaintiff, 

vs. 

COUNTY OF YOLO, COUNTY OF YOLO, 

SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT; SHERIFF ED 

PRIETO, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS 

OFFICIAL CAPACITY; SGT. KEN FISCH, 

Defendants. 

______________________________________

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No.: CIV-S-03-2342 FCD/DAD 

STIPULATION AND REQUEST FOR AN 

ORDER TEMPORARILY STAYING 

THE PROCEEDINGS PENDING FINAL 

DETERMINATION OF PLAINTIFF’S 

APPEAL OF HER SEPARATION FROM 

EMPLOYMENT 

 

 

WHEREAS the instant lawsuit arises out of the Plaintiff’s employment with the Yolo 

County Sheriff’s Department; 

WHEREAS Ms. Lancaster filed an appeal regarding the decision to terminate her 

employment and a hearing, before Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) Joe H. Henderson, was 

held on March 8 and 15, 2006 and concluded on April 7, 2006; 

WHEREAS briefing by the parties regarding the appeal of Ms. Lancaster’s separation 

from employment is due to the ALJ by May 17, 2006; 

WHEREAS the ALJ has thirty (30) days to issue a ruling regarding the Plaintiff’s appeal 

of her separation from employment; 

Case 2:03-cv-02342-FCD-DAD Document 59 Filed 05/16/06 Page 1 of 5
-2-

STIPULATION AND REQUEST FOR AN ORDER TEMPORARILY STAYING THE PROCEEDINGS 

PENDING FINAL DETERMINATION OF PLAINTIFF’S APPEAL FROM HER SEPARATION FROM 

EMPLOYMENT 

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

WHEREAS the parties agree that the determination of the ALJ concerning the Plaintiff’s 

separation from employment will, unless overturned on appeal pursuant to California Code of 

Civil Procedure § 1094.5, have a binding effect on certain issues in this case and will make 

pending discovery and discovery motions regarding several issues in the case unnecessary; 

WHEREAS the final determination of the Plaintiff’s appeal will have a collateral 

estoppel effect in these proceedings upon either of the following occurrences: 

1. The expiration of the ninety (90) day statute of limitations, within which time an 

appeal of the ALJ’s determination must be had as set forth in California Code of 

Civil Procedure section 1094.5; or 

2. If either party appeals the ALJ’s decision, upon a court’s ruling on a petition for 

writ of mandate; 

WHEREAS the Parties have both filed notices of motions regarding discovery disputes 

and a hearing on the parties respective motions is presently scheduled for May 19, 2006; 

WHEREAS while engaging in the meet and confer process the parties have agreed that 

many of the issues raised in the Parties respective discovery motions can be resolved, without 

resort to the Court, based on the final determination of the ALJ; 

WHEREAS the Parties are also in agreement that the determination of the ALJ regarding 

the Plaintiff’s appeal of her separation of employment from the County of Yolo Sheriff’s 

Department will eliminate the need for several depositions and a good deal of documentary 

discovery; 

WHEREAS there is also agreement that this determination will limit the number of issues 

to be tendered to the Parties experts, which will save the parties the time and expense of 

conducting expert discovery with regard to issues that are likely to be moot as a result of the final 

determination of the appeal and 

WHEREAS there is agreement the final determination will have an effect on the number 

of issues to be resolved and legal arguments made on a motion for summary judgment; 

WHEREAS the parties have agreed that under these circumstances, a stay of all 

proceedings, including discovery motions and all other discovery in this case, best promotes the 

Case 2:03-cv-02342-FCD-DAD Document 59 Filed 05/16/06 Page 2 of 5
-3-

STIPULATION AND REQUEST FOR AN ORDER TEMPORARILY STAYING THE PROCEEDINGS 

PENDING FINAL DETERMINATION OF PLAINTIFF’S APPEAL FROM HER SEPARATION FROM 

EMPLOYMENT 

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

efficient administration of justice; 

WHEREAS a stay would relieve the Parties and the Court from the time and expense of 

conducting discovery, hearing discovery motions and submitting motions for summary judgment 

with regard to issues that will be rendered moot based on the ALJ’s determination of the 

Plaintiff’s appeal; and 

WHEREAS the Court may order a stay of an action pending the resolution of 

independent proceedings which bear upon the case pursuant to it’s power to control its docket 

and calendar. See Citicasters Co. v. Country Club Communications, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 

17238, at pp.2-3 quoting Leyva v. Certified Grocers of Cal., Ltd, 593 F.2d 857, 863-864 (9th Cir. 

1979) which held “a trial court may, with propriety, find it efficient for its own docket and the 

fairest course for the parties to enter a stay of an action before it, pending resolution of 

independent proceedings which bear upon the case.” 

THEREFORE, THE PARTIES, THROUGH THEIR RESPECTIVE COUNSEL, 

HEREBY STIPULATE THAT: 

1. The interests of justice and the costs and burden, not only to the Parties but to the 

Court, associated with the discovery of issues that will be moot upon final determination of the 

Plaintiff’s appeal from her separation from her employment with the Yolo County Sheriff’s 

Department, requires a temporary stay of the instant proceedings; 

2. The most appropriate course of action is to join in a request to the Court to 

temporarily stay the proceedings in the instant case pending a final determination of the 

Plaintiff’s termination from her employment with the Yolo County Sheriff’s Department; 

3. A temporary stay of the proceedings in this case should stay all pending discovery 

motions, planned depositions, and deadlines for discovery and law and law and motion as set 

forth in the Court’s scheduling order to be resumed upon final determination of the Plaintiff’s 

appeal from her separation from employment; 

4. The discovery motions noticed by the Parties for May 19, 2006 and the 

depositions of Yolo County Sheriff Ed Prieto and Sergeant Ken Fisch, presently set for May 17, 

2006, are to be taken off calendar until further notice; 

Case 2:03-cv-02342-FCD-DAD Document 59 Filed 05/16/06 Page 3 of 5
-4-

STIPULATION AND REQUEST FOR AN ORDER TEMPORARILY STAYING THE PROCEEDINGS 

PENDING FINAL DETERMINATION OF PLAINTIFF’S APPEAL FROM HER SEPARATION FROM 

EMPLOYMENT 

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

5. The Parties agree the determination of the Plaintiff’s appeal from her separation 

from employment will be considered final for the purposes of lifting the requested stay upon 

either of the following occurrences: 

a. The passing of ninety (90) day statute of limitations following the decision of 

the ALJ regarding the Plaintiff’s appeal from her separation from employment 

and no petition for writ of mandate challenging that decision is filed by either 

party; OR 

b. If there is an appeal of the ALJ’s determination, upon a ruling on the 

appealing Party’s petition for writ of mandate pursuant to California Code of 

Civil Procedure section 1094.5; 

6. Upon the final determination of the above-described appeal, the Parties will 

immediately notify this Court that said determination has been made and is final, will attach a 

copy of the determination to the notice, and are in agreement the final determination is judicially 

noticeable; 

7. At that time the Parties will re-evaluate the necessity of the pending discovery 

motions and will re-notice any motions that are still necessary and will re-notice, after meeting 

and conferring regarding a date and time, any presently scheduled or contemplated depositions; 

8. Notwithstanding a stay of the proceedings in this case, both parties agree to 

supplement the responses to the written discovery requests that are the subject of the pending 

discovery motions, and will do so no later than Friday May 26, 2006; 

9. The Parties further agree that Defendants will not object to the Plaintiff’s addition 

of her two treating physicians, as set forth in her supplemental expert witness disclosure filed 

May 9, 2006; and 

10. That the amount of time of the instant stay, and any delay on the hearing of the 

present discovery disputes as a result of this stay, is not to be considered the source of any 

additional prejudice, as a result of a delay in the hearing on the matter, to either party if the 

presently pending discovery motions are re-noticed following the lifting of this temporary stay; 

and 

Case 2:03-cv-02342-FCD-DAD Document 59 Filed 05/16/06 Page 4 of 5
-5-

STIPULATION AND REQUEST FOR AN ORDER TEMPORARILY STAYING THE PROCEEDINGS 

PENDING FINAL DETERMINATION OF PLAINTIFF’S APPEAL FROM HER SEPARATION FROM 

EMPLOYMENT 

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

11. The time remaining for discovery, law and motion, and other pre-trial matters will 

resume, upon notice by the parties to the Court that a final determination regarding the Plaintiff’s 

appeal of her termination from her employment with the Yolo County Sheriff’s Department has 

been reached, with appropriate new deadlines set by the Court. 

Dated: May 15, 2006 ANGELO, KILDAY & KILDUFF 

/s/ Cori R. Sarno 

By:_________________________________ 

CAROLEE G. KILDUFF 

CORI R. SARNO 

Attorneys for Defendants 

COUNTY OF YOLO, 

YOLO COUNTY SHERIFF’S 

DEPARTMENT, ED PRIETO and KEN 

FISCH 

Dated: May 15, 2006 

 

 /s/ Gary W. Gorski 

By:_________________________________ 

I:\CGK\Lancaster\PLEADINGS\STIP & REQ FOR STAY OF 

PROC.doc

GARY W. GORSKI 

Attorney for Plaintiff LANCASTER 

IT SO ORDERED. 

Date: May 15, 2006 /s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. 

 HONORABLE FRANK C. DAMRELL, JR. 

 

Case 2:03-cv-02342-FCD-DAD Document 59 Filed 05/16/06 Page 5 of 5