Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-00469/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-00469-0/pdf.json

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

---

Stipulation and Order of the Court 

SINGLETON V. COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

(Case No. C 04-00469 SI) 

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

ROBERT R. POWELL ESQ.

DOUGLAS D. DURWARD, ESQ. 

LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT R. POWELL 

95 South Market Street, Suite 260 

San Jose, California 95113 

T: 408-271-2300 

ANDREA MILLER, ESQ. 

NAGLEY, MEREDITH, AND MILLER 

8001 Folsom Blvd., Suite 200 

Sacramento, California 95826 

T: 916-386-8282 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

(San Francisco Division) 

PETER SINGLETON, et al. ) Case No. C 04-00469 SI 

 ) 

Plaintiffs, ) STIPULATION AND ORDER 

) RE: CHANGES TO DISCOVERY 

) DEADLINES, AND MEDIATION, 

vs. ) VACATING VARIOUS DATES 

 ) AND SCHEDULING CMC 

COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, et al ) 

 ) 

 Defendants. ) 

 )

 The parties hereto, by and through their respective counsel, and in consideration of the 

following, hereby stipulate as set forth below, and ask this court order same. 

 An important expert witness for plaintiffs, Mr. Rick O’Hanlon of the San Diego PD, had 

been retained (payment had already been made) to act as an expert for plaintiffs, however, 

approximately 8 days ago, he had a family emergency involving a parent who lives on the east 

coast, and it required him to withdraw, and he has taken a leave of absence from his own 

employment for a period of one month. 

Case 3:04-cv-00469-SI Document 116 Filed 06/06/2005 Page 1 of 3 Case 3:04-cv-00469-SI Document 119 Filed 06/14/05 Page 1 of 3
Stipulation and Order of the Court 

SINGLETON V. COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

(Case No. C 04-00469 SI) 

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

 As a result of this unfortunate event, Plaintiff’s counsel contacted defense counsel and 

several conversations were had over the last few days about the impact of this development. In 

the course of those meet and confer efforts, certain disputes with regard to other discovery issues 

between the parties (including a request for an IME by defendants currently pending before the 

court), and the possibility of further mediation, were discussed. 

 Mindful that the case has been on the court’s docket for quite some time, but faced with 

the loss of the expert and the difficulty of replacing him on short notice, as well as consideration 

of the impact backing up the expert disclosure dates has on the rest of the scheduled dates in the 

matter, the counsel agreed that some changes needed to be made to the existing schedule in the 

case. Some additional concerns that impacted this decision were some conflicting trial dates on 

both counsel’s calendar that would make completing expert discovery and preparing any 

dispostive motions difficult at best, and the upcoming summer months in which both counsel 

have vacation plans and plaintiffs’ counsel will be going out of the United States with his family. 

 All counsel have agreed that the proposed stipulation and order below best serves the 

interests of the parties and their counsel, and submit it best serves the court in receiving a fully 

prepared case for trial or having it resolved short of trial. Counsel respectfully requests the court 

order as follows;

1. The date for exchange of the expert witness disclosures in this matter pursuant to Rule 

26, is changed to July 15th, 2005.

2. The date for the supplemental expert disclosures is changed to July 29th, 2005. 

3. The parties (or at least one person with full authority to settle the matter on behalf of each 

party), will attend a mediation with Dana Curtis on June 14th, 2005, at 9:00 a.m., at the offices of 

John Flegel, located at 1100 Alma St. Suite 210, Menlo Park, CA 94025. The mediation is 

Case 3:04-cv-00469-SI Document 116 Filed 06/06/2005 Page 2 of 3 Case 3:04-cv-00469-SI Document 119 Filed 06/14/05 Page 2 of 3
Stipulation and Order of the Court 

SINGLETON V. COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

(Case No. C 04-00469 SI) 

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

limited to four hours, unless otherwise agreed at the time, and the parties will share equally in 

payment of the mediator’s fees, and promptly contact her to arrange said payment. 

4. All trial and discovery deadlines that have not already passed, and excepting the expert 

discovery cut-off dates above, are hereby vacated.

5. If the matter is not resolved at the aforementioned mediation, counsel for the parties shall 

meet and confer and schedule a CMC in the month of August, 2005, at which time any 

remaining discovery deadlines and cut-off dates, as well as dispositive motion and trial dates, 

will be discussed and set. 

IT IS SO STIPULATED. 

__________/s/______________ 6/6/05 __________/s/______________ 6/6/05 

Robert R. Powell – Attorney for John Flegel – Attorney for the City of

Plaintiffs Menlo Park and Glenn Raggio 

ORDER OF COURT 

Based on the foregoing stipulation of the parties, and good cause appearing therefore, the 

court hereby adopts the stipulation of the parties set forth above as an order of this court. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 ___________________________ 6/___/05 

 Judge Susan Illston of the U.S. District 

 Court for the Northern District of California 

Case 3:04-cv-00469-SI Document 116 Filed 06/06/2005 Page 3 of 3

A further case management conference has 

been scheduled to occur on Friday, August 26, 

2005, at 2:30 p.m. A joint statement must be 

filed one week prior to the conference.

Case 3:04-cv-00469-SI Document 119 Filed 06/14/05 Page 3 of 3