Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-01807/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-01807-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER 

INCREASING NUMBER OF DEPOSITIONS 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JERRY LUM, etc., et al., ) 

) 

Plaintiffs, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN, et al., ) 

) 

Defendants. ) 

 ) 

NO. 2:10-CV-01807-LKK-DAD 

STIPULATION AND ORDER 

INCREASING THE NUMBER OF 

DEPOSITIONS THE PARTIES 

MAY CONDUCT 

[F.R.C.P. 30(a)(2)] 

DANA A. SUNTAG (State Bar #125127)

JOSHUA J. STEVENS (State Bar # 238105) 

ZOEY P. MERRILL (State Bar #268331) 

THE SUNTAG LAW FIRM 

A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 

The Kress Building 

20 North Sutter Street, Fourth Floor 

Stockton, California 95202 

Telephone: (209) 943-2004 

Facsimile: (209) 943-0905 

MATTHEW P. DACEY (State Bar #196943) 

OFFICE OF THE COUNTY COUNSEL OF SAN JOAQUIN 

Deputy County Counsel 

44 North San Joaquin Street, Suite 679 

Stockton, California 95202 

Telephone: (209) 468-2980 

Attorneys for All Defendants

Case 2:10-cv-01807-MCE-EFB Document 57 Filed 12/15/11 Page 1 of 3
STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER 

INCREASING NUMBER OF DEPOSITIONS 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

This stipulation and proposed order is entered into between Plaintiffs 

Jerry Lum and Dorothea Timmons (collectively “Plaintiffs”), on the one hand, and 

Defendants County of San Joaquin, City of Lathrop, Ray Walters, Steven Pease, 

Robert Davis, and Felipe Mendoza (collectively “Defendants”), on the other hand. 

RECITALS

A. Each side requires additional depositions beyond the 

10 depositions allowed by FRCP 30(a) to complete its necessary discovery and 

effectively prepare for trial. 

B. Plaintiffs have conducted nine depositions and have noticed the 

depositions of six of defendants’ expert witnesses. In addition, Defendants disclosed 

four non-retained experts, and Plaintiffs may wish to conduct their depositions. 

C. Defendants have conducted six depositions and have noticed the 

depositions of two additional percipient witnesses. In addition, Plaintiffs have disclosed 

four expert witnesses and four non-retained experts. It is anticipated that Defendants 

may need to conduct their depositions and Defendants may wish to conduct other 

percipient depositions. 

D. The parties have agreed that each side may conduct up to 

20 depositions. 

E. The parties intend to complete all depositions by the discovery cutoff date of January 31, 2012, and are not requesting an extension of the discovery cutoff date. 

Case 2:10-cv-01807-MCE-EFB Document 57 Filed 12/15/11 Page 2 of 3
STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER 

INCREASING NUMBER OF DEPOSITIONS 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

STIPULATION

IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED, by the parties, through their counsel 

of record, that each side may conduct up to 20 depositions. 

Dated: December 14, 2011 THE SUNTAG LAW FIRM 

 A Professional Corporation 

 By: __/s/ Dana A. Suntag____________ 

 DANA A. SUNTAG 

Attorneys for All Defendants 

Dated: December 14, 2011 WALKER, HAMILTON & KOENIG LLP 

By: __/s/ Peter J. Koenig____________

PETER J. KOENIG 

Attorneys for All Plaintiffs 

O R D E R

It is so ordered. 

Dated: December 14, 2011

DDAD1\orders.civil\lum1807.stip.depos.ord.doc 

Case 2:10-cv-01807-MCE-EFB Document 57 Filed 12/15/11 Page 3 of 3