Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-00909/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-00909-0/pdf.json

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

---

LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 

500 Capitol Mall 

Suite 2000 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

916.830.7200 

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 

STIPULATED JOINT REQUEST TO 

MODIFY THE INITIAL PRETRIAL 

SCHEDULING ORDER 

2:19-CV-00909-TLN-EFB 

TULLY RINCKEY PLLC 

STEVEN L. HERRICK, Bar No. 298563 

sherrick@fedattorney.com 

501 West Broadway 

Suite 800 

San Diego, CA 92101 

Telephone: 619.357.7600 

Facsimile: 619.357.7616 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

PATRICIA L. THOMAS-PEREZ 

LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 

BARBARA A. BLACKBURN, Bar No. 253731 

bblackburn@littler.com

DOUGLAS L. ROPEL, Bar No. 300486 

dropel@littler.com 

500 Capitol Mall 

Suite 2000 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

Telephone: 916.830.7200 

Facsimile: 916.561.0828 

Attorneys for Defendant 

SACRAMENTO REGIONAL TRANSIT 

DISTRICT 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

PATRICIA L. THOMAS-PEREZ, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

SACRAMENTO REGIONAL TRANSIT 

DISTRICT, 

1400 29th Street 

Sacramento, CA 95812 

Defendant. 

Case No. 2:19-CV-00909-TLN-EFB 

Assigned to District Judge Troy L. Nunley; 

Referred to Magistrate Judge Edmund F. 

Brennan 

STIPULATED JOINT REQUEST TO 

MODIFY THE INITIAL PRETRIAL 

SCHEDULING ORDER; ORDER 

Complaint filed: May 20, 2019 

 

Case 2:19-cv-00909-TLN-EFB Document 7 Filed 02/14/20 Page 1 of 5
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 

500 Capitol Mall 

Suite 2000 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

916.830.7200 

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 

STIPULATED JOINT REQUEST TO 

MODIFY THE INITIAL PRETRIAL 

SCHEDULING ORDER 

2. 2:19-CV-00909-TLN-EFB 

Plaintiff PATRICIA L. THOMAS-PEREZ ("Plaintiff") and Defendant 

SACRAMENTO REGIONAL TRANSIT DISTRICT (“Defendant”) hereby jointly request, based on 

the showing of good cause discussed herein, that the Court modify the Initial Pretrial Scheduling Order 

as follows: 

1. Mediation – The parties have agreed to and shall attend a private mediation 

within seventy-five (75) days of the filing of this Order; 

2. Discovery – Within fifteen (15) days of the conclusion of the mediation or ninety 

(90) days of the filing of this Order, whichever occurs first, the parties shall confer as required 

by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). All discovery, with the exception of expert discovery, 

shall be completed no later than one hundred twenty (180) days of the filing of this Order. 

Under the current Initial Pretrial Scheduling Order, discovery is to be completed by the 

parties no later than March 25, 2020 (240 days from the filing of Defendant’s Answer). The parties 

respectfully request this modification to the Initial Pretrial Scheduling Order to allow the parties to 

participate in a mediation prior to incurring the expenses of formal discovery. 

I. GOOD CAUSE EXISTS TO MODIFY THE STATUS (PRETRIAL SCHEDULING) 

ORDER 

On May 20, 2019, Plaintiff filed her Complaint for Damages with this Court. (ECF 1) 

On May 21, 2019, this Court issued an Initial Pretrial Scheduling Order, which Plaintiff was required 

to serve on Defendant. (ECF 3) Defendant filed its Answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint on July 29, 2019. 

(ECF 5) 

On November 15, 2019, Defendant’s counsel received an email from Plaintiff’s counsel 

that included Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents. (Declaration of Douglas L. 

Ropel, ¶ 2) The parties held a telephone conference on November 25, 2019. (Declaration of Douglas 

L. Ropel, ¶ 3) At that conference, Defendant objected to Plaintiff’s discovery on the grounds that: (1) 

Plaintiff had not served Defendant with the Court’s Initial Pretrial Scheduling Order, (2) the parties 

had not yet held a discovery conference as required by Rule 26(f), and (3) Defendant had not consented 

to electronic service of documents. Id. The parties also discussed exploration of early resolution of 

this matter via private mediation. Id. The conference concluded with the parties agreeing to 

Case 2:19-cv-00909-TLN-EFB Document 7 Filed 02/14/20 Page 2 of 5
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 

500 Capitol Mall 

Suite 2000 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

916.830.7200 

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 

STIPULATED JOINT REQUEST TO 

MODIFY THE INITIAL PRETRIAL 

SCHEDULING ORDER 

3. 2:19-CV-00909-TLN-EFB 

conference again in the second week of December to reach a decision on whether to mediate and, if 

not, hold a Rule 26(f) conference. Id. 

On December 16, 2019, and January 7, 2020, Defendant’s counsel emailed Plaintiff’s 

counsel following up on the issues of proceeding to pursue mediation and/or holding a Rule 26(f) 

conference. (Declaration of Douglas L. Ropel, ¶ 4) Defendant’s counsel did not receive a response. 

Id. Due to the combination of an internal change to the staffing of the case, the holidays, and Plaintiff’s 

counsel taking use-it-or-lose-it leave, Plaintiff’s counsel inadvertently neglected to respond to these 

emails. (Declaration of Steven L. Herrick, ¶ 2) 

Defendant’s counsel emailed Plaintiff’s counsel again on January 27, 2020. 

(Declaration of Douglas L. Ropel, ¶ 4) The parties held a telephone conference on January 29, 2020. 

(Declaration of Douglas L. Ropel, ¶ 5) The parties agreed to attempt to resolve this matter via private 

mediation without conducting (and incurring the expenses of) formal discovery. Id. The parties also 

agreed to submit the instant Stipulated Joint Request to Modify the Initial Pretrial Scheduling Order 

seeking an extension of the close of discovery deadline in this matter to facilitate the mediation and 

subsequent discovery activities, if the matter is not resolved at mediation. Id. Defendant has provided 

Plaintiff with a list of proposed mediators (including their availability) and the parties anticipate 

mediating in April 2020. (Declaration of Douglas L. Ropel, ¶ 6) 

Counsel for the parties believe that good cause exists for a modification of the Initial 

Pretrial Scheduling Order. The modification will allow both parties to fully participate in a mediation 

before incurring the expense of formal discovery. This will maximize the chances that the parties will 

reach an agreement to resolve this matter. Additionally, should the matter not be resolved, the 

modification will allow the parties to conduct meaningful formal discovery. Accordingly, Plaintiff 

and Defendant jointly request the Court modify the Initial Pretrial Scheduling Order to reflect the 

following dates: 

1. Mediation – The parties have agreed to and shall attend a private mediation 

within seventy-five (75) days of the filing of this Order; 

2. Discovery – Within fifteen (15) days of the conclusion of the mediation or ninety 

Case 2:19-cv-00909-TLN-EFB Document 7 Filed 02/14/20 Page 3 of 5
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 

500 Capitol Mall 

Suite 2000 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

916.830.7200 

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 

STIPULATED JOINT REQUEST TO 

MODIFY THE INITIAL PRETRIAL 

SCHEDULING ORDER 

4. 2:19-CV-00909-TLN-EFB 

(90) days of the filing of this Order, whichever occurs first, the parties shall confer as required 

by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). All discovery, with the exception of expert discovery, 

shall be completed no later than one hundred twenty (180) days of the filing of this Order. 

No other changes to the Initial Pretrial Scheduling Order are requested. All deadlines 

in the Initial Pretrial Scheduling Order that are calculated based on the close of discovery (e.g., 

dispositive motions) will be calculated from the close of discovery as modified in the instant Order 

requested by the parties. 

II. CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, the parties jointly request the Court modify the Initial 

Pretrial Scheduling Order and assign the proposed deadlines for mediation and close of discovery. 

Dated: February 12, 2020 

Dated: February 12, 2020 

/s/Steven Herrick (as authorized on 2/12/2020) 

STEVEN L. HERRICK 

TULLY RINCKEY PLLC 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

PATRICIA L. THOMAS-PEREZ 

/s/ Douglas L. Ropel 

BARBARA A. BLACKBURN 

DOUGLAS L. ROPEL 

LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 

Attorneys for Defendant 

SACRAMENTO REGIONAL TRANSIT 

DISTRICT 

 

Case 2:19-cv-00909-TLN-EFB Document 7 Filed 02/14/20 Page 4 of 5
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 

500 Capitol Mall 

Suite 2000 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

916.830.7200 

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 

STIPULATED JOINT REQUEST TO 

MODIFY THE INITIAL PRETRIAL 

SCHEDULING ORDER 

5. 2:19-CV-00909-TLN-EFB 

ORDER 

IT IS SO ORDERED that the Initial Pretrial Scheduling Order be modified as follows: 

Mediation – The parties have agreed to and shall attend a private mediation 

within seventy-five (75) days of the filing of this Order. 

Discovery – Within fifteen (15) days of the conclusion of the mediation or ninety 

(90) days of the filing of this Order, whichever occurs first, the parties shall confer as required 

by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). All discovery, with the exception of expert discovery, 

shall be completed no later than one hundred twenty (180) days of the filing of this Order. 

All deadlines in the Initial Pretrial Scheduling Order that are calculated based on the 

close of discovery (e.g., dispositive motions) will be calculated from the close of discovery as 

modified by this Order. 

DATED: February 13, 2020 

Case 2:19-cv-00909-TLN-EFB Document 7 Filed 02/14/20 Page 5 of 5