Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-01196/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-01196-22/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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 

1

Joint Stipulation and [Proposed] Order re Defs.’ Mot. to Quash R. Mitchell, et al. v. Cate, et al.

Case No. 2:08-CV-01196 JAM EFB

KAMALA D. HARRIS 

Attorney General of California 

DAMON G. MCCLAIN, (SBN 209508) 

Supervising Deputy Attorney General 

CHRISTOPHER J. BECKER, (SBN 230529) 

Deputy Attorney General 

ERIN SULLIVAN (SBN 242757) 

Deputy Attorney General 

455 Golden Gate Ave., Suite 11000 

San Francisco, Ca 94102-7004 

Telephone: 415.703.5716 

Facsimile: 415.703.5843 

Email: Erin.Sullivan@doj.ca.gov

Attorneys for Defendants M. Cate, S. Kernan, T. 

McDonald, G. Giurbino, J. Tilton, T. Felker, M. 

Wright, F. Foulk, D. Vanderville, J. Owen, and D. 

Hellwig

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SACRAMENTO DIVISION 

ROBERT MITCHELL, et al., 

Plaintiffs,

v. 

MATTHEW CATE, et al., 

Defendants.

Case No. 2:08-CV-01196 JAM EFB 

JOINT STIPULATION AND 

[PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND 

DEADLINE TO HEAR DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION TO QUASH PLAINTIFFS’ 

THIRD-PARTY SUBPOENA 

 

Judge: The Honorable Edmund F. 

Brennan 

 

 Under Local Rule 144, Plaintiffs Robert Mitchell, Alvaro Quesada, Tony Trujillo, and 

Hanif Abdullah (“Plaintiffs”) and Defendants M. Cate, S. Kernan, T. McDonald, G. Giurbino, J. 

Tilton, T. Felker, M. Wright, F. Foulk, D. Vanderville, J. Owen, and D. Hellwig (“Defendants”) 

(collectively the “Parties”) enter into this stipulation to extend the briefing schedule and hearing 

on Defendants’ Motion to Quash Plaintiffs’ Third-Party Subpoena. 

Case 2:08-cv-01196-TLN-EFB Document 137 Filed 11/16/12 Page 1 of 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 

2

Joint Stipulation and [Proposed] Order re Defs.’ Mot. to Quash R. Mitchell, et al. v. Cate, et al.

Case No. 2:08-CV-01196 JAM EFB

 IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by the Parties: 

1. On October 25, 2012, Plaintiffs attempted to serve a document subpoena on thirdparty Mr. Jeffrey Beard. 

2. The compliance date specified for Mr. Beard’s production was set for November 26, 

2012. 

3. Defendants contend that the subpoena was not served by “delivering a copy to the 

named person” as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(b)(1). 

4. If the subpoena had been personally served on Mr. Beard, any objections to the 

subpoena must be served within 14 days after service of the subpoena or before the time 

designated for compliance if less than 14 days after service. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(2)(B). 

5. Although Mr. Beard has not yet been personally served with the subpoena, the parties 

nonetheless agree that Mr. Beard has actual notice of the subpoena. 

6. At Defendants’ request, Plaintiffs agree that this stipulated extension relieves Mr. 

Beard of his obligation to comply with the November 26, 2012 production deadline pending a 

ruling from the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Quash. 

 7. On November 1, 2012, the Court informed defense counsel that it will be dark on 

November 21, 2012—the Court’s regular law and motion calendar day. 

8. Local Rule 251(b) provides that a discovery motion will “not be heard unless (1) the 

parties have conferred and attempted to resolve their differences, and (2) the parties have set forth 

their differences and the bases therefor in a Joint Statement re Discovery Disagreement.” 

Although not explicit, this Court has held that Local Rule 251’s joint statement requirement 

applies to motions to quash. See Portnoy v. City of Woodland, Case No. CIV S-11-1720 GEB 

EFB (E.D. Cal., Feb. 13, 2012). 

 9. The Parties agree that extended time on Defendants’ Motion to Quash is appropriate. 

 10. The Parties also agree that the extended schedule will have no impact on other 

deadlines in this case. 

 11. The Parties agree that this extension does not extend the date for any other discovery 

in the matter. 

Case 2:08-cv-01196-TLN-EFB Document 137 Filed 11/16/12 Page 2 of 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 

3

Joint Stipulation and [Proposed] Order re Defs.’ Mot. to Quash R. Mitchell, et al. v. Cate, et al.

Case No. 2:08-CV-01196 JAM EFB

 12. The parties agree that this extension does not extend or change any of the pre-trial 

dates set by the Pretrial Scheduling Order dated August 28, 2012. 

THE PARTIES HEREBY STIPULATE AND AGREE as follows: 

The Parties shall have until November 28, 2012 to file a “Joint Statement re Discovery 

Dispute” in accordance with Local Rule 251(c). Defendants’ Motion to Quash will be heard on 

December 5, 2012 at 10:00 a.m, or at the Court’s earliest convenience. 

IT IS SO STIPULATED. 

Dated: 11/8/12________ _/s/ Damon McClain____ 

 DAMON MCCLAIN

 Attorneys for Defendants 

IT IS SO STIPULATED. 

Dated: 11/8/12________ ________/s/______________

 REBEKAH EVENSON

 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: November 15, 2012 

SA2011300596 

20649366.doc 

Case 2:08-cv-01196-TLN-EFB Document 137 Filed 11/16/12 Page 3 of 3