Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-02979/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-02979-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Personal Injury

---

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

CLAUDIA M. QUINTANA 

City Attorney, SBN 178613 

Kelly J. Trujillo 

Deputy City Attorney, SBN 244286 

CITY OF VALLEJO, City Hall 

555 Santa Clara Street, P.O. Box 3068 

Vallejo, CA 94590 

Tel: (707) 648-4201 

Fax: (707) 648-4687 

Corey Page (Evans), State Bar No. 218789 

Geneva Page, State Bar No. 235633 

EVANS & PAGE 

2912 Diamond Street #346 

San Francisco, CA 94131 

Tel: (415) 896-5072 

Fax: (415) 358-5855 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

ANDREA JARREAU-GRIFFIN, individually and 

as a personal representative of the estate of GUY J. 

JARREAU, JR.; the estate of GUY J. JARREAU, 

JR. 

Thomas F. Bertrand, State Bar No. 056560 

Richard W. Osman, State Bar No. 167993 

Sheila D. Crawford, State Bar No. 278292 

BERTRAND, FOX, ELLIOT, 

OSMAN & WENZEL 

The Waterfront Building 

2749 Hyde Street 

San Francisco, California 94109 

Tel: (415) 353-0999 

Fax: (415) 353-0990 

Attorneys for Defendants 

CITY OF VALLEJO and KENT TRIBBLE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ANDREA JARREAU-GRIFFIN, individually 

and as a personal representative of the estate of 

GUY J. JARREAU, JR.; the estate of GUY J. 

JARREAU, JR., 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

CITY OF VALLEJO; KENT TRIBBLE, 

individually and in his official capacity as a 

police officer; DOES 1-10, 

 Defendants. 

Case No. 2:12-CV-02979-KJM-KJN 

STIPULATION TO CONTINUE SETTLEMENT 

CONFERENCE AND AMEND SCHEDULING 

ORDER BY CONTINUING DATES; 

DECLARATION OF COREY EVANS; ORDER 

Case 2:12-cv-02979-KJM-DB Document 89 Filed 10/12/16 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

1 

STIPULATION TO CONTINUE SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE; ORDER 

Jarreau-Griffin v. City of Vallejo, et al.; USDC Eastern District Case No. 2:12-CV-02979-KJM-KJN 

INTRODUCTION 

The parties by and through their designated counsel, pursuant to Local Rule 144(a) and Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 6, hereby submit this Stipulation to Continue Settlement Conference and Amend 

Scheduling Order By Continuing Date in this matter. This is the fifth stipulation to alter the pretrial 

scheduling order, the last being filed on August 14, 2015. The first two stipulations requested alterations 

to the scheduling order so the parties could wait to conduct discovery while motion practice was 

completed regarding the possible bankruptcy bar to plaintiffs’ claims. The bankruptcy issue was 

resolved in May 2015, and prior to that time, the parties had an agreement not to conduct and/or maintain 

any discovery. The second two stipulations requested alterations to the scheduling order so plaintiffs’ 

counsel (husband and wife law practice) could attend to the delivery, birth, and infant care of their 

newborn daughter. 

The parties have diligently conducted discovery and have worked cooperatively to overcome 

discovery disputes without involving the court. Also, the parties had a discovery dispute hearing taken 

off calendar when a new magistrate judge was appointed to the matter. Fortunately, the parties also 

resolved that discovery dispute informally. Because of the complexity of this case, the numerous 

witnesses and involved police personnel involved, defendants’ hurdles with accessing ESI, the fact that 

plaintiff lives out of state and based on the discovery disputes and diligent attempts to resolve those 

informally, discovery is ongoing and not complete. 

2. Subject to the Court’s approval, the parties propose to continue the settlement conference, 

presently scheduled for October 17, 2016 with Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney to March 17, 2017, 

or another available date thereafter. 

 3. The proposed continuance is necessary and good cause exists for the requested stipulation. 

Based on the January 13, 2016 stipulation of the parties, this court continued all pretrial dates as well as 

trial in this matter. Trial is now scheduled for July 10, 2017, the fact discovery cutoff is November 25, 

2016. The January 2016 stipulation was based largely on the birth of plaintiff’s counsel’s first child at 

the end of November 2015, and the fact that plaintiff’s counsel and his wife (and law partner) would be 

took off work until May 2016 because the delivery was more difficult than expected, and thus the postCase 2:12-cv-02979-KJM-DB Document 89 Filed 10/12/16 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

2 

STIPULATION TO CONTINUE SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE; ORDER 

Jarreau-Griffin v. City of Vallejo, et al.; USDC Eastern District Case No. 2:12-CV-02979-KJM-KJN 

delivery recovery and care was more time-intensive (and lasting), than expected. 

4. Since plaintiffs’ counsel returned to work in May 2016, the parties have been working to 

resolve multiple discovery issues that have arisen. Some discovery requests and production remained 

outstanding for many months because the electronic data being sought presented technological hurdles 

that had to be overcome to permit access to certain information. Here are a few examples, although there 

are many outstanding discovery issues: 

a. Defendants were required to engage their IT Department to overcome significant 

technological hurdles to search and provide certain requested and extensive electronic 

data. As a result, the searches have taken much longer than expected. 

b. The parties engaged in lengthy meet and confer efforts regarding the production of 

various Internal Affairs reports (“IA”). Fortunately, the parties were able to again avert 

bringing the dispute to the court and instead informally resolved the issue which resulted 

in the production of certain records to plaintiff for review two weeks ago. There still is 

the potential that further requested records will be disputed and court intervention may be 

necessary. This process—although fruitful—took many months to accomplish. 

c. The parties are presently engaged in discussions to use a third party lab to analyze 

certain evidence – a process that is ongoing. 

4. The parties agree that further discovery, including several key depositions, will enhance 

the prospects of resolving this case and therefore seek an additional five (5) months to conduct discovery 

prior to the Settlement Conference. 

5. Because the parties will be completing discovery until April 2017, it will be impossible to 

meet the remaining dates contained within the pretrial scheduling order. 

6. Based on the foregoing, the parties request that the scheduling order be adjusted as 

follows: 

Case 2:12-cv-02979-KJM-DB Document 89 Filed 10/12/16 Page 3 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 

STIPULATION TO CONTINUE SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE; ORDER 

Jarreau-Griffin v. City of Vallejo, et al.; USDC Eastern District Case No. 2:12-CV-02979-KJM-KJN 

Event Present Date Proposed New Date 

Settlement conference 10/17/2016 3/17/2017 

Discovery cutoff 11/25/2016 4/30/2017 

Expert discovery completion 1/25/2017 5/31/2017 

Dispositive motions heard by 3/10/2017 7/25/2017 

Joint pretrial conf. statements due 5/12/2017 9/23/2017 

Final pretrial conference 6/2/2017 10/6/2017 

Trial briefs due 6/26/2017 10/20/2017 

Jury trial 7/10/2017 11/6/2017 

DECLARATION OF COREY EVANS 

I, COREY EVANS, DECLARE: 

1. I am the attorney of record for the plaintiffs in this action, and am licensed and in good standing in the 

State of California, and the federal district courts of the State. 

2. I am a partner in the two-attorney firm of Evans & Page, the other attorney is Geneva Page, who is 

also my wife. 

3. Based on the state of discovery, I do not believe that either party is ready to attend a settlement 

conference with any reasonable hope of settling. Due to plaintiff Jarreau-Griffin’s residence out-of-state, 

and her financial position, attending a fruitless settlement conference would be a great inconvenience. 

4. On November 28, 2015, Geneva delivered our first child. The delivery was more difficult than either 

of us was expecting, and the post-delivery recovery was also more difficult. Therefore, we returned to 

work in May 2016. 

5. Since returning to work, we have endeavored to resolve all of our discovery disputes as expeditiously 

Case 2:12-cv-02979-KJM-DB Document 89 Filed 10/12/16 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 

STIPULATION TO CONTINUE SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE; ORDER 

Jarreau-Griffin v. City of Vallejo, et al.; USDC Eastern District Case No. 2:12-CV-02979-KJM-KJN 

as possible, although, there has been some unavoidable delays such as the changing of magistrate judges 

and defendants’ technological hurdles in accessing ESI. 

5. If necessary, I would be happy to attend a telephonic status conference hearing to further describe the 

difficulty and explain why this extension is reasonable and necessary. I declare under penalty of perjury 

under the laws of the State of California and the United States, that these statements are true and correct 

to the best of my knowledge. 

Dated: October 7, 2016 /s/ Corey Page 

 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

IT IS SO STIPULATED, THROUGH COUNSEL OF RECORD. 

DATED: October 7, 2016 BERTRAND, FOX, ELLIOT, 

 OSMAN & WENZEL 

 /s/ Richard W. Osman 

 Attorneys for Defendants 

DATED: January 6, 2016 EVANS & PAGE 

 /s/ Corey Page 

 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED: 

 Good cause exists for granting the stipulation to move dates, and the court hereby amends the 

pretrial scheduling order and sets forth the following dates: 

 a. Settlement conference ................................................................... 3/17/2017 

b. Discovery cutoff............................................................................ 4/30/2017 

 c. Expert discovery completion ........................................................ 5/31/2017 

 d. Dispositive motions heard by....................................................... 7/28/2017 

 e. Joint pretrial conf. statements due................................................ 9/15/2017 

 f. Final pretrial conference................................................................10/6/2017 

 g. Trial briefs due............................................................................. 10/23/2017 

 h. Jury trial.........................................................................................11/6/2017 

DATED: October 12, 2016 

Case 2:12-cv-02979-KJM-DB Document 89 Filed 10/12/16 Page 5 of 5