Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-02230/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-02230-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans with Disabilities Act

---

1

STATUS AND STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO 

MODIFY CURRENT SCHEDULING ORDER

320923

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

JAMES SANCHEZ, City Attorney (SBN 116356)

KATHLEEN T. ROGAN, Senior Deputy City Attorney (SBN 186055)

KRogan@cityofsacramento.org

CITY OF SACRAMENTO

915 I Street, Room 4010

Sacramento, CA 95814-2608

Telephone: (916) 808-5346

Telecopier: (916) 808-7455

CHARLES L. POST, SBN 160443

weintraub tobin chediak coleman grodin 

LAW CORPORATION 

400 Capitol Mall, 11th Floor

Sacramento, CA 95814

(916)558-6000 – Main 

(916) 346-611 – facsimile

Email: cpost@weintraub.com

THIMESCH LAW OFFICES 

TIMOTHY S. THIMESCH, Esq. (SBN 148213)

158 Hilltop Crescent 

Walnut Creek, CA 94597

Direct: (925) 588-0401

Facsimile: (888) 210-8868

tim@thimeschlaw.com

genefarber@gmail.com

Attorneys for the CITY OF SACRAMENTO

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HOLLYNN D'LIL

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

RIVERBOAT DELTA KING, INC., CITY 

OF SACRAMENTO, OLD 

SACRAMENTO BUSINESS 

ASSOCIATION, INC., AND DOES 1 

THROUGH 50, INCLUSIVE

 Defendant.

Case No.: 2:11-CV-02230-WBS-AC

STATUS, STIPULATION AND 

[Proposed] ORDER TO MODIFY 

CURRENT SCHEDULING ORDER 

Case 2:11-cv-02230-WBS-AC Document 46 Filed 08/13/13 Page 1 of 6
2

STATUS AND STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO 

MODIFY CURRENT SCHEDULING ORDER

320923

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

TO THE COURT: 

As the court is aware, the parties have previously sought to modify the scheduling order 

on several occasions. The parties are aware that the court looks upon requests for 

continuances with disfavor and, accordingly, do not seek continuances capriciously. 

However, a recent occurrence significantly impacts the case and all parties agree that a 120

day extension on all pending deadlines, including the trial date, is necessary. 

A. Status of Discovery 

On May 24, 2012, Plaintiff served subpoenas for documents on two City departments, 

Community Development Building and Community Development Planning Division. The 

subpoena included twenty-one requests, including building, planning, zoning permits, and 

blueprints for the Delta King boat hotel located at “1000 Front Street.” In order to gather 

the responsive documents, the City provided the subpoena to the City Clerk’s Office, as that 

is the current procedure. The City Clerk’s office is responsible for searching for documents 

regardless of the department from which they are sought because the departments have been 

instructed to provide all of their files not currently in use to the Clerk so that they can be 

scanned and categorized as part of the Clerk’s efforts to centralize and improve the City’s 

document management system. Admittedly, few documents were found. 

Shortly after Plaintiff served her subpoena, co-defendant Delta King served two Public 

Records Act (PRA) requests on the City. The PRA issued on August 27, 2012 sought all 

records reflecting or discussing disabled person access to the Delta King Hotel. The second, 

issued on September 20, 2012, sought all records relating to the application, consideration, 

and issuance of any building or occupancy permits concerning the Delta King; records 

related to the conversion of the Delta King; and all records associated with 1350 Front Street 

related to the Delta King. 

Case 2:11-cv-02230-WBS-AC Document 46 Filed 08/13/13 Page 2 of 6
3

STATUS AND STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO 

MODIFY CURRENT SCHEDULING ORDER

320923

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

As has been City practice for the since October 2011, both PRAs were directed to the 

City Clerk’s office for a response. A new, inexperienced employee handled the search 

through the Citywide Content Management (CCM) system and the ACCELA system. The 

Clerk Office produced those documents which were located and determined responsive. 

None of the searches revealed City approved plans for the renovation of the Delta King 

nor any other type of correspondence or construction records. The absence of these 

documents was frustrating and hampered the progress of the case. Such documents could be 

the best evidence of the extent to which permission and exceptions were granted, if at all, 

with respect to disabled access to and within the Delta King and the ramps leading thereto. 

Given witness testimony as to the existence of City approved plans and other documents, the 

parties believed that additional City documents might exist - somewhere.

As the discovery closure date drew near, Plaintiff served another document demand on 

the City seeking 53 categories of documents as well as the Person Most Knowledgeable to 

testify as to the way in which the search was conducted. One of the requests again sought 

any blueprints, plans, or construction records for the Delta King. The demand and 

deposition notice was sent to the City Clerk’s office. Because testimony would be required, 

the search was conducted by Assistant City Clerk Wendy Klock-Johnson. Klock- Johnson 

has been with the City 10 years and has a total of 15 years’ experience in records 

management. She is also responsible for the current program in which all of the 

microfisched images from the 1980s are being digitized as well as being an experienced 

researcher. 

By this point, several witnesses had testified that they believed the building department 

records had been transferred to microfische at some point in the past. This fact as well as the 

parties’ consternation with the dearth of records thus far produced and the belief that there 

Case 2:11-cv-02230-WBS-AC Document 46 Filed 08/13/13 Page 3 of 6
4

STATUS AND STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO 

MODIFY CURRENT SCHEDULING ORDER

320923

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

must be more was conveyed to Klock-Johnson. 

A search of the CCM yielded two certificates of occupancy with the listed address of 

1000 Front Street, the permit numbers appeared older than the others and unfamiliar as she 

had not noted other records in the production relating to the permit numbers. Klock-Johnson 

conducted a search in ACCELA by permit number which produced a record listing the 

address as 1350 Front Street, not 1000 as indicated on the certificate of occupancy. The 

ACCELA file for 1350 Front Street indicated that additional records could be found on 

microfische. When she continued the search for 1350 Front Street in the microfische, KlockJohnson located several sets of City plans for the renovation of the Delta King. These are 

plans that were not previously located and have not yet been seen by the parties. 

Plaintiff’s previous subpoena sought documents for 1000 Front Street. However, Delta 

King’s PRA did seek plans for 1350 Front Street. Klock-Johnson has investigated the public 

record request work flow and determined that the original search for documents responsive 

to the PRA was done by a new and inexperienced employee who apparently was not as 

skilled at navigating the microfische and the computer programs. That person was employed 

by the City for a total of nine months, she left in July 2013.

Thus far, Klock-Johnson has located nine new types of documents responsive to 

Plaintiff’s request, including three sets of plans, minutes, permits, council reports, and code 

enforcement documents. She is continuing to search the approximately 1.8 million frames of 

uncategorized microfische and believes she is likely to locate additional documents. 

However, the impact of locating City approved plans is significant. The parties need time to 

review and digest the material. The deposition of Michael Coyne, set for August 9th, has 

been continued to allow the parties time to understand the plans prior to commencing the 

deposition. 

Case 2:11-cv-02230-WBS-AC Document 46 Filed 08/13/13 Page 4 of 6
5

STATUS AND STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO 

MODIFY CURRENT SCHEDULING ORDER

320923

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

Expert reports are due on August 15, 2013. However, the information in the plans may 

significantly modify the experts’ opinions. Additional time is needed so that each expert can 

review the information, confer with counsel, and modify the reports if necessary. 

Because of this significant discovery, the parties respectfully request a 120 day extension 

of the trial and pre-trial related dates as follows: 

Deadlines and Dates Current Proposed 

Completion of Discovery August 5, 2013 December 5, 2013 

and related motions

Expert Disclosure w/reports August 15, 2013 December 16, 2013

Rebuttal expert disclosure w/ August 25, 2013 January 6, 2014 

reports 

Expert discovery cutoff and September 15, 2013 February 18, 2014

related motions

Last day to file all motions November 6, 2013 March 6, 2014

but for continuances and TROs

File individual Pretrial Conf. Plaintiff- Plaintiff

Statements Jan.13, 2014 May 14, 2014

Defendants Defendants

January 20, 2014 May 21, 2014

Final Pretrial Conference January 27, 2014 May 27, 2014

At 2:00 p.m.

Trial (5 days) March 24, 2014 July 22, 2014

at 9:00 a.m.

SO STIPULATED.

Dated: August 9, 2013 THIMESCH LAW OFFICES 

BY_______authorized_____________________

TIMOTHY S. THIMESCH

Case 2:11-cv-02230-WBS-AC Document 46 Filed 08/13/13 Page 5 of 6
6

STATUS AND STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO 

MODIFY CURRENT SCHEDULING ORDER

320923

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

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

HOLLYN D’LIL 

DATED: August 9, 2013 WEINTRAUB, GENSHLEA CHEDIAK 

TOBIN & TOBIN

By: authorized

CHARLES L. POST

Attorneys for the Defendant 

RIVERBOAT DELTA KING, INC.

DATED: August 9, 2013 JAMES SANCHEZ,

City Attorney

By: /s/Kathleen R. Rogan 

KATHLEEN T. ROGAN

Senior Deputy City Attorney

Attorneys for the Defendant 

CITY OF SACRAMENTO

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 12, 2013

Case 2:11-cv-02230-WBS-AC Document 46 Filed 08/13/13 Page 6 of 6