Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01467/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01467-18/pdf.json

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

---

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 D. Weakley, Esq. Bar No. 082853

Michael R. Linden, Esq. Bar No. 192485

WEAKLEY, ARENDT & McGUIRE, LLP

1630 East Shaw Avenue, Suite 176

Fresno, California 93710

Telephone: (559) 221-5256

Facsimile: (559) 221-5262

Attorneys for defendants COUNTY OF FRESNO, DEPUTY ROBERT CAREY, SERGEANT

ERIC BROUGHTON, SERGEANT KATHY CARREIRO, and former SHERIFF RICHARD

PIERCE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, FRESNO

TERRY HILLBLOM, SANDRA

HILLBLOM and MICHAEL L., a minor, by

and through his guardians ad litem, TERRY

AND SANDRA HILLBLOM, 

Plaintiffs.

v.

COUNTY OF FRESNO; former FRESNO

COUNTY SHERIFF RICHARD PIERCE, et

al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________ 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO. 1:07- CV- 01467- LJO - SMS

STIPULATION AND ORDER RE

MODIFICATION OF SCHEDULING

ORDER

Plaintiffs TERRY HILLBLOM, SANDRAHILLBLOM, andMICHAELL., a minor, byand

through his guardians ad litem TERRY HILLBLOM and SANDRA HILLBLOM (“Plaintiffs”) and

defendants COUNTY OF FRESNO, DEPUTY ROBERT CAREY, SERGEANT ERIC

BROUGHTON, SERGEANT KATHY CARREIRO, and former SHERIFF RICHARD PIERCE

(“Defendants”) hereby stipulate to the following modification of the operative scheduling order. 

As set forth in the accompanying declaration of Defendants’ counsel, good cause exists to modify

the current scheduling order. 

On May 10, 2010, the parties went to mediation in an effort to resolve the case.

However, the efforts were unsuccessful. Declaration of Michael R. Linden (“Linden Decl.”), para.

__________________________

Stipulation and Order Re Modification of

Scheduling Order

Case 1:07-cv-01467-LJO -SMS Document 80 Filed 06/11/10 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. On May 21, 2010, the scheduling order modified, pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, to allow

for additional non-expert discovery until August 1, 2010. Doc. No. 74. However, the last day to

disclose expert witnesses, pursuant to Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, was set for

June 15, 2010. Id. While this may have been an oversight on the part of counsel, good cause exists

for a modification to the scheduling order to correct what appears to have been an oversight by

counsel, and to avoid possible complications. Linden Decl., para. 3. 

On May 28, 2010, Plaintiffs’ counsel contacted Defendants’ counsel to clear dates in June

for the depositions of defendant Sergeants Eric Broughton and Kathy Carreiro, as well as persons

most knowledgeable from the Sheriff’s Department concerning training and supervision. Linden

Decl., para. 4. However, the parties and witnesses are still working out the scheduling for these

depositions. Id. 

Also, Plaintiffs have made efforts to obtain, via subpoena, the personnel records of

defendant Deputy Robert Carey from the Kerman Police Department. Linden Decl., para. 5. The

parties have only recently reached a tentative agreement to have the documents produced, subject

to a protective order. Id. In addition, an internal affairs investigation related to Deputy Robert

Carey is still under review by Magistrate Judge Sandra Snyder. Linden Decl., para. 6. 

The parties submit the Rule 26 expert disclosure date has become problematic, and that

good cause exists for a modification of the scheduling order. Linden Decl., para. 7. If the parties’

experts are required to submit Rule 26 reports prior to the close of non-expert discovery, their

opinions will not be based on all of the relevant discovery in this case. Id. Therefore, rather than

to have an expert’s Rule 26 report subject to a considerable amount of additional discovery, the

parties herein submit that good cause exists to modify the existing scheduling order to allow for

non-expert discovery to be completed prior to the service of the Rule 26 reports. Id. 

Based on the foregoing, the parties request that the Court issue an Order making the

following changes to the Scheduling Order in this case:

///

///

///

__________________________

Stipulation and Order Re Modification of

Scheduling Order 2

Case 1:07-cv-01467-LJO -SMS Document 80 Filed 06/11/10 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

Expert Disclosure: from June 15, 2010 to August 13, 2010.

Supplemental Expert Disclosure: from July 15, 2010 to August 20, 2010.

Expert Discovery Cut-off: from August 1, 2010 to September 3, 2010. 

Non-Dispositive Motion Filing Deadline: from August 6, 2010 to September 10, 2010. 

Dispositive Motion Filing Deadline: from September 6, 2010 to September 24, 2010.

Pre-trial Motion Hearing Deadline: from October 7, 2010 to November 5, 2010.

Settlement Conference: from November 3, 2010 to November 17, 2010 at 10:30 a.m. before

Judge Snyder in Courtroom #7.. 

All other dates in the operative scheduling order will remain in effect.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

DATED: June 8, 2010

 By: /s/ Patience Milrod 

Patience Milrod 

Attorney for Plaintiffs

DATED: June 8, 2010

WEAKLEY, ARENDT & McGUIRE, LLP

 By: /s/ Michael R. Linden 

James D. Weakley

Michael R. Linden 

Attorneys for Defendants

The stipulated pre-trial motion hearing deadline is deleted from the following order of the Court. 

Counsel are once again reminded: the pre-trial conference of 12/2/10 and the Trial date of 2/14/11

are firm.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 11, 2010 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

__________________________

Stipulation and Order Re Modification of

Scheduling Order 3

Case 1:07-cv-01467-LJO -SMS Document 80 Filed 06/11/10 Page 3 of 3