Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03098/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03098-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

1 HANSON BRIDGETT MARCUS VLAHOS & RUDY, LLP

JOHN D. ADKISSON - 114449

2 GAIL CECCHETTINI WHALEY - 162765

ELI R. MAKUS - 234287

3 980 Ninth Street, Suite 1500

Sacramento, CA 95814

4 Telephone: (916) 442-3333

Facsimile: (916) 442-2348

5 jadkisson~hansonbridgett.com

gwhaley~hansonbrigett.com

6 emakus~hansonbridgett.com

7 Attorneys for Defendant

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

8 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

9 Attorneys for Defendant

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

10 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

THE SCOTT LAW FIRM

11 JOHN HOUSTON SCOTT - 72578

LIZABETHN. DE VRIES - 227215

12 1375 Sutter Street, Suite No. 222

San Francisco, CA 94107

13 Telephone: (415) 561-9600

Facsimile: (415) 561-9609

14

Attorneys for Plaintiff

15 SUSAN LEW

16 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

17 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

18

19 SUSAN LEW,

20

No. C 06 3098 CRB

Plaintiff,

21 v.

STIPULATION AND (PROPOSED) CASE

MANAGEMENT ORDER

22 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

IN AND FOR THE CITY AND COUNTY

23 OF SAN FRANCISCO, and DOES 1

THROUGH 50, INCLUSIVE,

24

25

26

27

28

Defendant.

- 1 -

STIPULA nON AND (PROPOSED) CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER 1369000.1

Case 3:06-cv-03098-CRB Document 46 Filed 11/01/07 Page 1 of 4
1 It is hereby stipulated and agreed between counsel for Plaintiff Susan Lew and counsel for

2 Defendant Superior Cour of California in and for the City and County of San Francisco that the

3 following case management order be adopted in this case. Unless otherwise indicated, all time

4 frames referenced herein refer to calendar days.

5 This stipulation and Proposed Order is intended to address outstanding discovery and

6 summary judgment deadlines and contains updated information regarding the status and progress

7 of the case. To date, the parties have completed numerous depositions, including par of

8 Plaintiffs deposition and six depositions of key witnesses, as well as written discovery. The

9 parties have also completed two unsuccessful mediation sessions before mediator Barbara S.

1 a Bryant. Although the parties continue to communicate through counsel, it appears mediation

11 efforts have failed and the case is ready to move forward.

12 DISCOVERY PERIOD

13

14

1.

(a)

The paries hereby stipulate and agree to the following plan for further discovery.

Discoverv Period. Discovery shall remain open until further order of the Court, or

15 at least until the due date of Plaintiffs Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment

16 (See ir 12, infra). . Defendant also anticipates propounding written discovery, including requests

17 for admissions and special interrogatories. Plaintiff anticipates taking more depositions. Plaintiff

18 may propound written discovery.

19 All written discovery shall be served in a time frame that wil permit timely responses to

20 be served in accordance with paragraph 11 (c). The parties anticipate that expert discovery wil

21 proceed according to statutory requirements.

22 (b) Depositions. All depositions shall comply with the limits prescribed by the

23 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure unless otherwise stipulated between the parties or ordered by the

24 Court. The parties have stipulated that the deposition of any judges in this matter wil be limited

25 to four hours each. The parties have agreed that the plaintiff may take the depositions of four

26 staff attorneys, Judge Ballati, Judge Hitchens, Cheryl Martin and Gordon Park-Li, in addition to

27 the seven depositions already taken by the Plaintiff. Any depositions taken by Plaintiff thereafter

28 wil be done pursuant to written stipulation or an application to the court showing good cause for

- 2 -

STIPULATION AND (PROPOSED) CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER 1369000.1

Case 3:06-cv-03098-CRB Document 46 Filed 11/01/07 Page 2 of 4
1 additional depositions.

2 Defendant and Plaintiff agree that any additional deposition of Plaintiff can be completed

3 in one-half day. If at the conclusion ofthe on-half day of deposition any additional time is

4 needed, it wil be pursuant to stipulation court order.

5 (c) Written Discovery. The paries anticipate serving written discovery including

6 requests for production of documents, requests for admission and interrogatories. At this time,

7 the parties do not anticipate requiring any variance from the limits set forth under the Federal

8 Rules of Civil Procedure governing written discovery.

9 (d) Confidential Information. The parties agree to meet and confer regarding entering

10 into a Protective Order to protect employees' privacy rights and Defendant's confidential and

11 sensitive information.

12 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

13 2. Defendant and Plaintiff propose the following schedule for Defendant's motion for

14 summar iudgment (pursuant to Local Rule 7-2, 3):

15 (i) Defendant to serve its moving papers on January 14,2008;

16 (ii) Plaintiff to serve her opposition papers on February 11,2008;

17 (iii) Defendant to serve its reply papers on February 18, 2008; and

18 (iv) Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment on March 3, 2008.

19 3. Separate Statement. Pursuant to Local Rule 56-2(a), Defendant requests that the

20 Court indicate whether it shall require that a separate statement of undisputed facts or joint

21 statement be fied with the motion for summary judgment, or not.

22 . TRIAL SCHEDULE

23 4. Pursuant to the August 17, 2007 case management conference, the court has

24 ordered trial set for April 14, 2008 at 8:30 a.m. A pre-trial conference is set for April 8, 2008 at

25 2:30 p.m. The parties anticipate that the trial willast5-7 court days.

26 III

27 III

28 I I I

- 3 -

STIPULATION AND (PROPOSED) CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER 1369000.1

18 15 22 7

Case 3:06-cv-03098-CRB Document 46 Filed 11/01/07 Page 3 of 4
8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1 DATED: October 30,2007

2

3

4

5

6

7

HANSON BRIDGETT MARCUS

VLAHOS & RUDY, LLP

By: Ilsll

JOHN D. ADKISSON

GAIL CECCHETTINI WHALEY

ELI R. MAKUS

Attorneys for Defendant

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

DATED: October 30, 2007 THE SCOTT LAW FIRM

By: Ilsll

JOHN H. SCOTT

LIZABETHN. DE VRIES

Attorney for Plaintiff

Susan Lew

SO ORDERED.

Dated:

The Honorable Charles R. Breyer

- 4-

STIPULATION AND (PROPOSED) CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER 1369000.1

October 31, 2007

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Charles R. Breyer

Case 3:06-cv-03098-CRB Document 46 Filed 11/01/07 Page 4 of 4