Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-00695/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-00695-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] REVISED 

SCHEDULING ORDER 

DB2/ 25543461.1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEFFREY B. NORSWORTHY (a/k/a

MICHELLE-LAEL B. NORSWORTHY),

Plaintiff,

vs.

JEFFREY BEARD; A. NEWTON; A. 

ADAMS; LORI ZAMORA; RAYMOND 

J. COFFIN; MARION SPEARMAN; 

DAVID VAN LEER; JARED LOZANO; 

and DOES 1-30,

Defendants.

Case No. 3:14-cv-00695-JST

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]

ORDER REVISING SCHEDULE FOR 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Plaintiff and Defendants (collectively, “Parties”) in the above-captioned case hereby 

stipulate as follows:

WHEREAS, at the Initial Case Management Conference on October 15, 2014, the Court 

requested that the Parties submit a proposed schedule for Plaintiff’s forthcoming Motion for 

Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. No. 28);

WHEREAS, on November 6, 2014, the Court entered the stipulated Scheduling Order 

Regarding Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction, which, inter alia, set January 5, 2015 as 

the close of fact discovery and set March 4, 2015 as the date for the hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion 

for Preliminary Injunction;

WHEREAS, in the interim, Parties have diligently and in good faith engaged in discovery 

in preparation for briefing on the Motion for Preliminary Injunction, including the production of 

thousands of documents and the taking of seven depositions;

Case 3:14-cv-00695-JST Document 48 Filed 01/02/15 Page 1 of 4
DB2/ 25543461.1

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

2

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] REVISED 

SCHEDULING ORDER

WHEREAS, Defendants have informed Plaintiff that they will not be able to complete the 

production of documents responsive to the outstanding requests for production until the end of 

January at the earliest;

WHEREAS, Plaintiff diligently is seeking to schedule the deposition of Plaintiff’s treating 

psychologist during part of the relevant period, Dr. Reese, who has retired from CDCR and is 

represented by separate counsel, but will not be able to complete that deposition by the current 

deadline for fact discovery related to the motion for preliminary injunction;

WHEREAS, in light of these circumstances, Parties would benefit from a brief extension 

of the current schedule to allow Parties to complete discovery prior to briefing the Motion for 

Preliminary Injunction;

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED between the Parties, and subject to 

the concurrence of the Court, that the schedule for Plaintiff’s forthcoming Motion for Preliminary 

Injunction will be revised as follows:

Event Originally Set 

Date

Revised Date

Close of Fact Discovery as It Relates 

to Preliminary Injunction Motion

January 5, 2015 February 2, 2015

Disclosure of Plaintiff’s Expert 

Report(s)

January 5, 2015 February 2, 2015

Disclosure of Defendants’ Rebuttal 

Expert Report(s)

January 21, 2015 February 18, 2015

Disclosure of Plaintiff’s Reply Expert 

Report(s)

January 29, 2015 February 26, 2015

Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary 

Injunction

January 29, 2015 February 26, 2015

Case 3:14-cv-00695-JST Document 48 Filed 01/02/15 Page 2 of 4
DB2/ 25543461.1

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

2

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] REVISED 

SCHEDULING ORDER

Event Originally Set 

Date

Revised Date

Defendants’ Opposition to Motion for 

Preliminary Injunction

February 12, 2015 March 12, 2015

Plaintiff’s Reply in Support of 

Motion for Preliminary Injunction

February 19, 2015 March 19, 2015

Hearing on Motion for Preliminary 

Injunction

March 4, 2015 at 

2:00 pm in 

Courtroom 91

April 1, 2015 or such 

other date set by the 

Court.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

Dated: December 31, 2014 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP

By /s/ - Herman J. Hoying

HERMAN J. HOYING

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP

One Market, Spear Street Tower

San Francisco, California 94105-1126

Telephone: 415.442.1000

Facsimile: 415.442.1001

hhoying@morganlewis.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff

 1

The parties shall meet and confer regarding the need for an evidentiary hearing and shall inform 

the Court should they believe that an evidentiary hearing will be beneficial in deciding 

Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction.

Case 3:14-cv-00695-JST Document 48 Filed 01/02/15 Page 3 of 4
DB2/ 25543461.1

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

2

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] REVISED 

SCHEDULING ORDER

Dated: December 31, 2014 KAMALA D. HARRIS

Attorney General of California

WILLIAM C. KWONG

Supervising Deputy Attorney General

By /s/ Edward R. Fluet 

EDWARD R. FLUET (State Bar No. 247203)

Deputy Attorney General

455 Golden Gate Ave., Suite 11000

San Francisco, California 94102-7004

Telephone: 415.703.5836

Facsimile: 415.703.5843

Ned.Fluet@doj.ca.gov

Attorneys for Defendants M. Spearman, 

R. Coffin, J. Lozano, A. Adams, and L. 

Zamora

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 2, 2015 

U

The Honorable Jon S. Tigar

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

 Judge Jon S. Tigar 

Case 3:14-cv-00695-JST Document 48 Filed 01/02/15 Page 4 of 4