Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-02211/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-02211-9/pdf.json

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

---

White v. Sacramento, No. 2:21-cv-02211-JAM-DB

Stipulation and Order Modifying Pretrial Scheduling Order 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

NISHA KASHYAP, SBN 301934

ANDREW NTIM, SBN 347084

LAWYERS’ COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS 

OF THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA

131 Steuart Street, Suite 400

San Francisco, CA 94105

Telephone: (916) 634-8687 

Email: nkashyap@lccrsf.org; 

antim@lccrsf.org 

CYNTHIA L. RICE, SBN 87630

AVIANCE D. BROWN, Pro Hac Vice

CIVIL RIGHTS EDUCATION AND

ENFORCEMENT CENTER

1245 E Colfax Ave., Suite 400 

Denver, CO 80218 

Telephone: (303) 757-7901 

Email: crice@creeclaw.org abrown@creeclaw.org 

DAN SIEGEL, SBN 56400

EMILYROSE JOHNS, SBN 294319

SARA BELADI, SBN 348987

SIEGEL, YEE, BRUNNER & MEHTA 

475 14th Street, Suite 500

Oakland, California 94612

Telephone: (510) 839-1200 

Facsimile: (510) 444-6698 

Email: danmsiegel@gmail.com 

emilyrose@siegelyee.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

MEGAN WHITE, et al.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SACRAMENTO DIVISION

MEGAN WHITE, JERONIMO AGUILAR,

LOREN WAYNE KIDD, LYRIC NASH,

NICOLLETTE JONES, and ODETTE ZAPATA,

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

 

SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT; THE

CITY OF SACRAMENTO; DANIEL HAHN;

and DOES 1-200 (the names and numbers of 

which are currently unknown), 

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 2:21-cv-02211-JAM-DB

STIPULATION AND ORDER MODIFYING 

PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER 

Case 2:21-cv-02211-JAM-SCR Document 64 Filed 04/22/24 Page 1 of 7
White v. Sacramento, No. 2:21-cv-02211-JAM-DB

Stipulation and Order Modifying Pretrial Scheduling Order 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

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1) and Civil Local Rules 144(a), Plaintiffs Megan White, Jeronimo 

Aguilar, Loren Wayne Kidd, Lyric Nash, Nicollette Jones, and Odette Zapata (“Plaintiffs”) and Defendants 

the City of Sacramento, the Sacramento Police Department, and Daniel Hahn (“Defendants”), collectively 

“the parties”, by and through their respective counsel of record, hereby stipulate as follows:

WHEREAS, on August 10, 2022, the Court issued a Pretrial Scheduling Order (Dkt. No. 34), and

then amended the pretrial scheduling order on June 20, 2023 (Dkt. No. 46) and on October 23, 2023 (Dkt. 

No. 51).

WHEREAS, the October 23, 2023 Amended Pretrial Order provides that the date for completion of 

discovery is May 1, 2024, the date for disclosure of expert witnesses is May 15, 2024, the date for 

disclosure of rebuttal witnesses is June 19, 2024; dispositive motions shall be filed by July 2, 2024, and

hearing on such motions shall be on September 10, 2024 at 1:30 PM; the Final Pretrial Conference is set for 

October 29, 2024 at 10:00 AM and the Jury Trial is set for December 2, 2024 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 6 

(JAM) before District Judge John A. Mendez.

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs served a Second Set of Requests for Production of Documents on July 21, 

2023, but Plaintiffs were not satisfied with Defendants’ responses because Plaintiffs considered them 

incomplete. After multiple meet and confer sessions Defendants agreed to supplement those responses 

between October 13 and October 20, 2023. 

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs served a Third Set of Requests for Production of Documents on October 3, 

2023. 

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs were not satisfied with Defendants’ supplemental responses to the Second Set 

of Requests for Production of Documents and responses to the Third Set of Requests for Production of 

Documents because Plaintiffs considered them incomplete, and Plaintiffs agreed to propose search terms to 

assist Defendants in identifying additional responsive documents.

WHEREAS, the parties agreed in December 2023 to search terms to assist Defendants in identifying 

additional documents responsive to Plaintiffs’ Second and Third Set of Requests for Production of 

Documents. 

Case 2:21-cv-02211-JAM-SCR Document 64 Filed 04/22/24 Page 2 of 7
White v. Sacramento, No. 2:21-cv-02211-JAM-DB

Stipulation and Order Modifying Pretrial Scheduling Order 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

WHEREAS, Defendants agreed to run all search terms by January 18, 2024.

WHEREAS, on January 18, 2024, Defendants stated that certain searches would need to be 

completed manually, thereby requiring more time. 

WHEREAS, on January 25, 2024, Defendants stated that, barring unforeseen difficulties, they 

anticipated their production to be complete by March 30, 2024. 

WHEREAS, Defendants stated that they would produce documents responsive to Plaintiffs’ requests 

on a rolling basis. 

WHEREAS, on March 20, 2024, Defendants stated that they were still in the process of reviewing 

and, as necessary, redacting responsive documents, and represented that they had only one individual who 

was capable of that review and redaction.

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs served a second set of Special Interrogatories on Defendants on March 26, 

2024, and responses are being drafted.

WHEREAS, on March 31, 2024 and April 3, 2024, Defendants stated that additional documents 

responsive to Plaintiffs’ requests would be forthcoming. 

WHEREAS, as of the date of this stipulation, documents responsive to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests

are still being produced.

WHEREAS, as of the date of this stipulation, meet and confer efforts remain ongoing. 

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs anticipate that, after Plaintiffs receive Defendants’ complete responses to 

Plaintiffs’ discovery requests, further meeting and conferring may be necessary to ensure the parties have 

mutually satisfied their discovery obligations.

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs anticipate that the responsive documents that have yet to be produced by 

Defendants will be relevant to Plaintiffs’ expert reports. 

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs have noticed additional 30(b)(6) and percipient witness depositions for April 

2024. 

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs anticipate that this deposition testimony may be relevant to Plaintiffs’ expert 

reports.

WHEREAS, the parties had a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 

Case 2:21-cv-02211-JAM-SCR Document 64 Filed 04/22/24 Page 3 of 7
White v. Sacramento, No. 2:21-cv-02211-JAM-DB

Stipulation and Order Modifying Pretrial Scheduling Order 4

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

March 18, 2024.

WHEREAS, Judge Claire continued the settlement conference to April 29, 2024.

WHEREAS, the parties feel that several sessions may be necessary to resolve the case given the 

complexity of the case.

WHEREAS, the parties are still interested in pursuing meaningful settlement discussions and believe 

that extending the deadlines will promote those efforts.

WHEREAS, the parties believe that the filing of dispositive motions will distract from settlement 

efforts, but all parties desire to preserve the right to seek pre-trial relief if settlement is not possible.

WHEREAS, the parties now believe that in order to complete discovery, designate expert witnesses, 

engage in meaningful settlement and, if necessary, file and have hearing on dispositive motions, it will be 

necessary to extend all current pretrial dates and the trial date by approximately six weeks.

WHEREAS, the parties agreed to extend the deadline for completion of discovery to June 15, 2024 

for the limited scope of (i) completing outstanding percipient witness depositions, (ii) the outstanding Rule 

30(b)(6) deposition, (iii) ensuring that all productions are complete, and finally, (iv) up to six additional 

percipient witness depositions and up to one additional Rule 30(b)(6) deposition, and agreed to extend all 

other deadlines as set forth in this joint request.

WHEREAS, this joint request is being made in the interests of judicial economy and in good faith 

and will not prejudice any party.

WHEREAS, the parties have shown good cause for the stipulated extensions pursuant to Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 16(b)(4), in light of the parties’ diligent efforts on discovery to date and the parties’ desire to 

participate in meaningful settlement discussions. 

NOW THEREFORE, Plaintiffs and Defendants hereby stipulate, subject to the approval of this 

Court for good cause shown, that:

1. The deadline for parties’ completion of discovery shall be extended to June 15, 2024.

2. The deadline for parties’ disclosure of expert witnesses shall be extended to July 1, 2024. 

3. The deadline for parties’ disclosure of rebuttal experts shall be extended to August 5, 2024. 

4. The deadline for filing dispositive motions be extended to August 19, 2024. Hearing on such 

Case 2:21-cv-02211-JAM-SCR Document 64 Filed 04/22/24 Page 4 of 7
White v. Sacramento, No. 2:21-cv-02211-JAM-DB

Stipulation and Order Modifying Pretrial Scheduling Order 5 

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

motions shall be on October 21, 2024 at 1:30 PM 

5. The date for the Final Pretrial Conference be extended and SET for December 2, 2024 at 

10:00 AM and the date for Jury Trial be extended and SET for January 21, 2025 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 

6. 

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: April 17, 2024 SIEGEL, YEE, BRUNNER & MEHTA

 /s/ Dan Siegel DAN SIEGEL

Attorneys for Plaintiffs MEGAN WHITE, JERONIMO 

AGUILAR, LOREN WAYNE KIDD, LYRIC NASH,

NICOLLETTE JONES, and ODETTE ZAPATA

Dated: April 17, 2024 SACRAMENTO CITY ATTORNEY

 /s/ Sean Richmond _ 

SEAN D. RICHMOND

Attorneys for Defendants 

SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT; THE CITY OF 

SACRAMENTO; DANIEL HAHN

Case 2:21-cv-02211-JAM-SCR Document 64 Filed 04/22/24 Page 5 of 7
White v. Sacramento, No. 2:21-cv-02211-JAM-DB

Stipulation and Order Modifying Pretrial Scheduling Order 6 

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

ATTESTATION

 I, Kayla Webster, attest that all other signatures listed, and on whose behalf the filing is submitted, 

concur in the filing’s contents and have authorized the filing. 

 /s/ Kayla Webster

 Kayla Webster

Case 2:21-cv-02211-JAM-SCR Document 64 Filed 04/22/24 Page 6 of 7
White v. Sacramento, No. 2:21-cv-02211-JAM-DB

Stipulation and Order Modifying Pretrial Scheduling Order 7 

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

ORDER MODIFYING PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER

Based on the stipulation of the parties and good cause appearing, the Pretrial Scheduling Order, is 

MODIFIED as follows: 

Event Date

Discovery Cutoff Date 08/02/2024 

Disclosure of Expert(s) Deadline 06/07/2024 

Supplemental Disclosure Deadline 06/21/2024 

Dispositive Motion Filing Deadline 09/27/2024 

Dispositive Motion Hearing 12/03/2024, at 1:00 p.m.1

Joint Mid-Litigation Statement Filing Deadline Fourteen (14) days prior to the 

close of discovery 

Joint Pretrial Statement Filing Deadline 01/16/2025 

Final Pretrial Conference 01/24/2025, at 10:00 a.m. 

Jury Trial (20 days) 03/10/2025, at 9:00 a.m. 

All other instructions contained in the August 10, 2022 Pretrial Scheduling Order (ECF No. 34) shall 

remain in effect. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: April 22, 2024 /s/ John A. Mendez

THE HONORABLE JOHN A. MENDEZ

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1 Calendars are subject to last minute changes. Contact the Courtroom Deputy for available dates. 

Case 2:21-cv-02211-JAM-SCR Document 64 Filed 04/22/24 Page 7 of 7