Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01902/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01902-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 350
Nature of Suit: Motor Vehicle Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1346 Tort Claim

---

STIPULATION RE SCHEDULING ORDER 1

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

29

30

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEEGAN VALENTICH AND PENNY 

VALENTICH,

Plaintiffs,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, and 

DOES 1-10, Inclusive,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:14-cv-01902-MCE-CMK

STIPULATION AND ORDER 

REGARDING SCHEDULING ORDER

This is a relatively straight-forward case involving an accident between a dirt bike and a 

vehicle operated by federal employees on a Forest Service Road near Susanville, California, and is 

brought under the Federal Tort Claims Act. (See Compl., Dkt. No. 1, at ¶ 10). Plaintiffs filed their

Complaint August 12, 2014, and the parties exchanged written discovery. The United States also 

took the deposition of Plaintiff Keegan Valentich on April 10, 2015. Although Plaintiffs planned to 

depose federal employees Shannon Williams and Stan Gray, as well as a California Highway Patrol 

Officer, in Summer 2015, the depositions were never set due to scheduling complications. The 

discovery period ended in October 2015, without the three depositions ever occurring. Out of 

fairness to Plaintiffs and in the hope of resolving this matter more efficiently, the parties hereby 

stipulate, and propose, to permit these three depositions to occur outside of the discovery period, and 

on February 23, 2016, or the next available and mutually agreeable date.

BENJAMIN B. WAGNER

United States Attorney

GREGORY T. BRODERICK

Assistant United States Attorney

501 I Street, Suite 10-100

Sacramento, CA 95814

Telephone: (916) 554-2700

Facsimile: (916) 554-2900 

Attorneys for the United States

Case 2:14-cv-01902-MCE-CMK Document 12 Filed 02/11/16 Page 1 of 2
STIPULATION RE SCHEDULING ORDER 2

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

29

30

Because the Court’s deadline for hearing summary judgment motions is April 21, 2016, 

however, the normal 8-week, cross-motion, summary judgment briefing schedule would necessitate 

the filing of a summary judgment motion on February 25, 2016—two days after the depositions are 

currently scheduled to occur. (See Scheduling Order, Dkt. No. 8 at ¶ VII). Counsel for the United 

States cannot accommodate Plaintiffs’ request for these depositions without an alteration to that 

briefing schedule. The parties thus further stipulate to alter the schedule such that any motion be filed 

by March 24, 2016, any opposition be filed by April 7, 2016, and any reply brief be filed by April 14, 

2016. The parties do not request any change to the current hearing date of April 21, 2016. 

Finally, the Court’s Scheduling Order inadvertently states that this will be a jury trial. (See

Dkt. No. 8 at ¶ X). As noted in the Joint Status Report (Dkt. No. 6 at 3:23-25), federal law requires a 

trial to the Court, not a jury. See 28 U.S.C. § 2402. In addition, the parties now estimate that trial 

will be approximately three days, rather than the original five-day estimate. Thus, the parties further 

stipulate and propose that the Court alter or amend the scheduling order to state “Trial will be to the 

Court, and not to a jury. The parties estimate a trial length of three (3) days.”

Respectfully Submitted,

DATED: January 14, 2016 BENJAMIN B. WAGNER

United States Attorney

By: /s/ Gregory T. Broderick

GREGORY T. BRODERICK

Assistant United States Attorney

DATED: January 14, 2016 By: /s/ Joseph Polockow (authorized 01/14/2016)

JOSEPH J. POLOCKOW JR. 

Attorney for Plaintiffs

ORDER

The foregoing stipulation is APPROVED and GRANTED as outlined above. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 10, 2016

Case 2:14-cv-01902-MCE-CMK Document 12 Filed 02/11/16 Page 2 of 2