Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00500/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00500-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

STIP. & ORDER TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER

A.G., et al. v. County of Tulare, et al.

Case No. 1:23-cv-00500-JLT-SKO

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

T. Kennedy Helm, IV (SBN 282319)

HELM LAW OFFICE, PC

644 40th Street, Suite 305

Oakland, California 94609

Telephone: (510) 350-7517

Facsimile: (510) 350-7359

E-mail: kennedy@helmlawoffice.com

Attorney for Plaintiffs A.G. and F.G., by and 

through their guardian ad litem, Johana 

Yolanda Corral Galvan

Kevin G. Little (SBN 149818) 

Michelle L. Tostenrude (SBN 290121) 

LAW OFFICE OF KEVIN G. LITTLE 

Post Office Box 8656 

Fresno, California 93747 

Telephone: (559) 342-5800 

Facsimile: (559) 242-2400 

E-Mail: kevin@kevinglittle.com

E-mail: michelletostenrude@yahoo.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff Rosa Madrid

Gary L. Logan (SBN 90558) 

Alan J. Mish (SBN 105771 

LAW OFFICES OF 

LEBEAU • THELEN, LLP 

5001 East Commercenter Drive, Suite 300 

Post Office Box 12092 

Bakersfield, California 93389-2092 

Telephone:(661) 325-8962

Facsimile: (661) 325-1127 

E-mail: glogan@lebeauthelen.com 

E-mail: amish@lebeauthelen.com 

Attorneys for Defendants County of Tulare, 

Jose Sanchez Perez, James Dillon, and Rodrigo 

DeOchoa

Lindsey M. Romano (SBN 337600)

Kendra N. Stark (PRO HAC VICE)

GORDON REES SCULLY 

MANSUKHANI, LLP

275 Battery Street, Suite 2000

San Francisco, CA 94111

Telephone: (415) 875-4126

Facsimile: (415) 986-8054

E-mail: lromano@grsm.com

E-mail: kstark@grsm.com 

Attorneys for Defendants Wellpath, LLC

and Alla Liberstein, M.D.

Peter G. Bertling (SBN 121602)

Jemma Allison Parker Saunders (SBN 227962)

BERTLING LAW GROUP

21 E. Canon Perdido Street, Suite 204B

Santa Barbara, California 93101

Telephone: (805) 879-7558

Facsimile: (805) 869-1597

E-mail: peter@bertlinglawgroup.com

E-mail: jemma@bertlinglawgroup.com

Attorneys for Defendant Andrew P. Ho, M.D.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRESNO DIVISION

A.G., a minor, by and through her guardian ad 

litem Johana Yolanda Corral Galvan, 

individually and as co-successor in interest to 

Decedent Francisco Ponce, Jr.; F.G., a minor, 

by and through her guardian ad litem Johana 

Yolanda Corral Galvan, individually and as 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 1:23-cv-00500-JLT-SKO

(Consolidating Case No. 1:24-cv-00150-JLTSKO)

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO

Case 1:23-cv-00500-JLT-SKO Document 57 Filed 09/04/24 Page 1 of 9
STIP. & ORDER TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER

A.G., et al. v. County of Tulare, et al.

Case No. 1:23-cv-00500-JLT-SKO

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

co-successor in interest to Decedent Francisco 

Ponce, Jr.; individually,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

COUNTY OF TULARE, a public entity; 

Correctional Deputy Trainee JOSE 

SANCHEZ PEREZ; Correctional Deputy 

JAMES DILLON; Correctional Deputy 

RODRIGO DEOCHOA; WELLPATH, LLC, 

a Delaware Corporation; ANDREW P. HO, 

MD; ALLA LIBERSTEIN, MD; and DOES 

7–50, jointly and severally,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER

(Doc. 56)

Case 1:23-cv-00500-JLT-SKO Document 57 Filed 09/04/24 Page 2 of 9
STIP. & ORDER TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER

A.G., et al. v. County of Tulare, et al.

Case No. 1:23-cv-00500-JLT-SKO 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

Plaintiffs A.G. and F.G., by and through their counsel, T. Kennedy Helm, IV, of Helm Law 

Office, PC; Plaintiff Rosa Madrid, by and through her counsel, Kevin G. Little and Michelle L. 

Tostenrude of the Law Office of Kevin G. Little; Defendants County of Tulare, Jose Sanchez 

Perez, James Dillon, and Rodrigo DeOchoa, by and through their counsel, Gary L. Logan, of 

Lebeau Thelen, LLP; Defendants Wellpath, LLC and Alla Liberstein, M.D., by and through their 

counsel Lindsey M. Romano and Kendra N. Stark of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP; and 

Defendant Andrew P. Ho, M.D., by and through his counsel Peter G. Bertling and Jemma Parker 

Saunders of Bertling Law Group; hereby respectfully stipulate and request as follows:

RECITALS

A. When an act must be done within a specified time, the Court may, for good cause, extend 

the time with or without motion if the court acts, or a request is made, before the original 

time expires. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A). With respect to an order setting forth the Court’s 

pretrial schedule, the “court may modify the pretrial schedule ‘if it cannot be reasonably 

met despite the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.’” Johnson v. Mammoth 

Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). The Parties respectfully submit that 

good cause exists to continue the deadline for completion of non-expert (fact) discovery 

and successive deadlines.

B. Currently, the cutoff for non-expert (fact) discovery is November 6, 2024. ECF No. 37.

C. Since the last modification of the scheduling order on March 5, 2024, the Parties have made 

substantial progress in discovery and amendment of the pleadings. On March 7, 2025, 

Plaintiffs A.G. and F.G. served responses to the County Defendants’ Rule 33 

Interrogatories and Rule 34 Requests; and on April 4, 2024, the County Defendants served 

responses to Plaintiffs A.G.’s and F.G’s Rule 34 requests. Meanwhile, counsel for Plaintiffs 

A.G. and F.G. and counsel for Defendants Wellpath, LLC; Liberstein; and Ho met and 

conferred regarding perceived deficiencies in the First Amended Complaint and 

successfully avoided motion practice by stipulating to Plaintiffs’ filing of a Second 

Amended Complaint. Accordingly, on May 6, 2024, Plaintiffs obtained leave from this 

Case 1:23-cv-00500-JLT-SKO Document 57 Filed 09/04/24 Page 3 of 9
STIP. & ORDER TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER

A.G., et al. v. County of Tulare, et al.

Case No. 1:23-cv-00500-JLT-SKO 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

Court to file a Second Amended Complaint, ECF No. 48, which Plaintiffs filed that day. 

ECF No. 49. On May 9, 2024, the County Defendants answered the Second Amended 

Complaint. ECF No. 50. On May 20, 2024, Defendant Ho, who the same day sought and 

received the Court’s consent for substitution of counsel, ECF Nos. 51–52, answered the 

Second Amended Complaint, ECF No. 53, as did Defendants Wellpath, LLC, and 

Liberstein. ECF No. 54.

D. In addition to amending the pleadings while avoiding motion practice, the Parties have also 

continued to engage in written discovery. Plaintiffs A.G. and F.G. have provided responses 

and responsive documents to the County Defendants’ requests for production of 

documents, most recently on July 19, 2024, and have served requests for production of 

documents on the County Defendants, the Wellpath Defendants, and Defendant Ho, and 

Plaintiffs A.G. and F.G.

A. Nevertheless, counsel for all Plaintiffs; counsel for the Tulare County Defendants; counsel 

for Defendants Wellpath, LLC and Liberstein; and counsel for Defendant Ho, do not 

believe that fact discovery can be completed by the current deadline of November 6, 2024, 

due to the impacted schedules of the Parties’ counsel due to deadlines in earlier-filed 

matters between now and then. First, counsel for Defendant Ho, who substituted into this 

case on May 20, 2024 and obtained the case file last month, has trials in September and 

October 2024; specifically, on September 21, 2024 in Trejo v. County of Imperial, et al., 

No. 20-cv-01465-LAB-MSB (S.D. Cal.), and on October 22, 2024 in the matter of Snider 

v. County of Merced, No. 1:20-cv-00409-JLT-SAB (E.D. Cal.). Second, counsel for 

Plaintiffs A.G. and F.G must take depositions during September and October 2024 in 

Mackie v. County of Santa Cruz, et al., No. 4:19-cv-02096-YGR (N.D. Cal.) (non-fatal 

shooting case); and K.C. v. Alameda County, et al., No. 4:22-cv-01817-DMR (N.D. Cal.) 

(in-custody death case); and must also complete fact-discovery by October 7, 2024 in both

Webb v. County of San Bernardino, et al., No. 5:22-cv-01448-SSS-SP (C.D. Cal.) (incustody death case) and in D.B., et al. v. City of Stockton, et al., No. 2:21-cv-02154 (E.D. 

Case 1:23-cv-00500-JLT-SKO Document 57 Filed 09/04/24 Page 4 of 9
STIP. & ORDER TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER

A.G., et al. v. County of Tulare, et al.

Case No. 1:23-cv-00500-JLT-SKO 3

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

Cal.) (fatal police shooting case); oppose a motion for summary judgment on October 9, 

2024 in Garcia v. County of Stanislaus, et al., No. 1:21-cv-00331-MCE-SCR (E.D. Cal.)

(excessive-force case); complete expert disclosures by October 14, 2024 in Webb;

complete rebuttal expert disclosures by October 25, 2024 in Servin v. San Joaquin County, 

et al., No. 2:20-cv-02445-WBS-CSK (E.D. Cal.) (excessive-force case); and complete 

rebuttal expert disclosures by October 28, 2024 in Webb. 

B. Given the foregoing; as well as the desire of counsel for the Parties to be able to exercise 

professional courtesies by reasonably accommodating the schedules of the deponents and 

counsel as much as is reasonably possible, and the need to set depositions on mutually 

available dates, including the anticipated difficulties with doing this—given the number of 

counsel’s schedules and potential depositions involved—the undersigned counsel 

reasonably estimate the need for, and, thus, respectfully request, that an additional 

approximately 90 days be added to the deadline for the cutoff of fact discovery.

C. Therefore, the Parties agree that a stipulated extension of approximately 90 days of the 

cutoff for fact discovery will allow the Parties to complete fact discovery. 

D. The Parties further agree that such a stipulated extension of 90 days of the cutoff for fact 

discovery will necessitate an approximate 90-day extension of each of the remaining 

pretrial dates, and of the trial date. 

STIPULATIONS

Given the foregoing, and the current approaching non-expert discovery cutoff of November 

6, 2024 (ECF No. 37), the Parties respectfully submit that good cause exists to continue the nonexpert discovery cutoff and the subsequent case deadlines by approximately 90 days each:

Matter Current Deadline (ECF No. 37) New Deadline

Non-Expert Discovery Cutoff November 6, 2024 February 5, 2025

Expert Disclosures December 11, 2024 March 12, 2025

Rebuttal Expert Disclosures January 15, 2025 April 16, 2025

Case 1:23-cv-00500-JLT-SKO Document 57 Filed 09/04/24 Page 5 of 9
STIP. & ORDER TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER

A.G., et al. v. County of Tulare, et al.

Case No. 1:23-cv-00500-JLT-SKO 4

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 Discovery Cutoff February 17, 2025 May 19, 2025

Non-Dispositive Motion 

Deadline-Filing

March 17, 2025 June 17, 2025

Non-Dispositive Motion 

Deadline-Hearing

April 9, 2025 July 9, 2025

Dispositive Motion DeadlineHearingApril 21, 2025 July 21, 2025

Deadline to Provide Proposed 

Settlement Conference Dates:

May 14, 2025 August 13, 2025

Pre-Trial Conference June 16, 2025 at 1:30 p.m. September 15, 2025 at 

1:30 p.m.

Trial August 12, 2025 at 8:30 a.m. November 11, 2025, at 

8:30 a.m.

IT IS SO STIPULATED, THROUGH COUNSEL OF RECORD.

Respectfully Submitted,

Dated: September 3, 2024 HELM LAW OFFICE, PC

/s/ T. Kennedy Helm, IV 

T. KENNEDY HELM, IV 

 Attorney for Plaintiffs A.G. and F.G., by and through 

 Their guardian ad litem, Johana Yolanda Corral Galvan

Dated: September 3, 2024 LAW OFFICE OF KEVIN G. LITTLE

 /s/ Kevin G. Little* 

 By: KEVIN G. LITTLE

 MICHELLE G. TOSTENRUDE

 Attorneys for Plaintiff Rosa Madrid

Dated: September 3, 2024 LEBEAU THELEN LLP

 /s/ Gary L. Logan* 

 By: GARY L. LOGAN

 Attorneys for Tulare County Defendants

Case 1:23-cv-00500-JLT-SKO Document 57 Filed 09/04/24 Page 6 of 9
STIP. & ORDER TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER

A.G., et al. v. County of Tulare, et al.

Case No. 1:23-cv-00500-JLT-SKO 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

Dated: September 3, 2024 GORDON REES SCULLY MANASUKHANI, LLP

 /s/ Kendra N. Stark* 

 By: LINDSEY M. ROMANO

 KENDRA N. STARK

 Attorneys for Defendants Wellpath, LLC and 

 Alla Liberstein, MD

Dated: September 3, 2024 BERTLING LAW GROUP

/s/ Jemma Parker Saunders*

 By: PETER G. BERTLING

 JEMMA PARKER SAUNDERS

 Attorneys for Defendant Andrew P. Ho, MD

*Pursuant to Local Rule 131(e), Messrs. Logan and Little, and Mses. Stark and Saunders each

consented that this document be filed by CM/ECF.

Case 1:23-cv-00500-JLT-SKO Document 57 Filed 09/04/24 Page 7 of 9
STIP. & ORDER TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER

A.G., et al. v. County of Tulare, et al.

Case No. 1:23-cv-00500-JLT-SKO 6

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

ORDER

The Court, having considered the Parties’ stipulation (Doc. 56), and good cause appearing, 

rules as follows:

The Court finds that the Parties have shown good cause for the relief their Stipulation 

requests. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the existing Scheduling Order (Doc. 37) is MODIFIED

as follows:

Matter Current Deadline New Deadline

Non-Expert Discovery Cutoff November 6, 2024 February 5, 2025

Expert Disclosures December 11, 2024 March 12, 2025

Rebuttal Expert Disclosures January 15, 2025 April 16, 2025

Expert Discovery Cutoff February 17, 2025 May 19, 2025

Non-Dispositive Motion 

Deadline-Filing

March 5, 20251June 17, 2025

Non-Dispositive Motion 

Deadline-Hearing

April 9, 2025 July 23, 20252

Dispositive Motion Deadline -

Filing

March 17, 2025 June 16, 20233

Dispositive Motion DeadlineHearingApril 21, 2025 July 21, 2025

Deadline to Provide Proposed 

Settlement Conference Dates:

May 14, 2025 August 20, 2025, or 90 

days before trial, 

whichever is later

1 This deadline was not specified in the parties’ March 5, 2024, Scheduling Order (see Doc. 37) but is set in accordance 

with this Court’s Local Rules. See E.D. Cal. L.R. 230.

2 This date has been adjusted in accordance with this Court’s Local Rules. See E.D. Cal. L.R. 230.

3 This deadline was not specified in the parties’ stipulation (see Doc. 56) but is set in accordance with this Court’s 

Local Rules. See E.D. Cal. L.R. 230.

Case 1:23-cv-00500-JLT-SKO Document 57 Filed 09/04/24 Page 8 of 9
STIP. & ORDER TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER

A.G., et al. v. County of Tulare, et al.

Case No. 1:23-cv-00500-JLT-SKO 7

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

Pre-Trial Conference June 16, 2025 at 1:30 p.m. September 15, 2025 at 

1:30 p.m.

Trial August 12, 2025 at 8:30 a.m. November 18, 2025, at 

8:30 a.m.4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 4, 2024 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4 This date has been adjusted due to Court holiday.

Case 1:23-cv-00500-JLT-SKO Document 57 Filed 09/04/24 Page 9 of 9