Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02471/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02471-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000 Job Discrimination (Sex)

---

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

RENNE SLOAN 

HOLTZMAN SAKAI LLP

Attorneys at Law

-1-

JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE PRETRIAL DEADLINES;

Case No. 2:14-CV-02471-MCE

TIMOTHY G. YEUNG (SBN 186170) 

tyeung@publiclawgroup.com

STEVE CIKES (SBN 235413)

scikes@publiclawgroup.com

RENNE SLOAN HOLTZMAN SAKAI LLP

555 Capitol Mall, Suite 600

Sacramento, California 95814

Telephone: (916) 258-8800

Facsimile: (916) 258-8801

Attorneys for Defendants

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

COUNTY OF SHASTA (erroneously sued herein as

SHASTA COUNTY MARSHAL’S OFFICE), and JOEL DEAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAIME SCHMIDT, DEBRA KNOWLES, 

ELIZABETH SAMPSON, AND RYAN 

HENRIOULLE,

Plaintiffs,

v.

SHASTA COUNTY MARSHAL’S OFFICE 

AND JOEL DEAN,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:14-CV-02471-MCE

AMENDED1 JOINT STIPULATION AND 

ORDER TO CONTINUE PRETRIAL 

DEADLINES

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b) and Eastern District Local Rule 143, 

Defendants Superior Court of California, County of Shasta2 and Joel Dean (collectively, “Defendants”) 

and Plaintiffs Jaime Schmidt, Debra Knowles, Elizabeth Sampson and Ryan Henrioulle (“Plaintiffs”)

hereby stipulate and agree as follows.

WHEREAS, on October 21, 2014, Plaintiffs filed their Complaint (Docket No. 1) in this action. 

In their Complaint, Plaintiffs allege that, while employed in the Marshal’s Office of the Superior Court of 

California, County of Shasta, they were subjected to discrimination, harassment and retaliation, in 

 1 This amended stipulation and proposed order supersedes the stipulation and proposed order filed on 

November 17, 2015 (Docket No. 13), in order to cure certain typographical errors in that document 

pertaining to the proposed, new pretrial dates.

2 Erroneously sued herein as Shasta County Marshal’s Office.

Case 2:14-cv-02471-MCE-DMC Document 16 Filed 12/02/15 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

RENNE SLOAN 

HOLTZMAN SAKAI LLP

Attorneys at Law

-2-

JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE PRETRIAL DEADLINES;

Case No. 2:14-CV-02471-MCE

violation of federal and state discrimination laws.

WHEREAS, on December 12, 2014, Defendants filed an Answer (Docket No. 6) to Plaintiffs’ 

Complaint, denying Plaintiffs’ claims in their entirety and asserting a variety of separate and additional 

defenses.

WHEREAS, on April 10, 2015, the Court issued a Pretrial Scheduling Order (Docket No. 10), 

setting various pretrial and trial deadlines, including a January 22, 2016 deadline for completing 

discovery and a July 14, 2016 deadline for hearing any dispositive motions.

WHEREAS, to date, the parties have completed some discovery in this matter. For example, in 

June 2015, the parties exchanged initial disclosures. Moreover, in September 2015, Defendants 

propounded some written discovery on Plaintiffs, to which Plaintiffs, after receiving a three-week 

extension, recently responded to.

WHEREAS, due to the fact that there are four individual Plaintiffs (each with their own separate 

sets of employment histories, factual allegations and legal claims), the parties do not believe they will be 

able to complete discovery in this matter by the January 22, 2016 deadline. This is particularly so given 

that in order to complete discovery by the current deadline, the parties would have to complete all 

depositions within the next two months (notwithstanding the upcoming holidays).

WHEREAS, the parties anticipate that additional time will assist in their respective prosecution 

and defense of this action and wish to continue the pretrial deadlines set forth in the Court’s Pretrial 

Scheduling Order by approximately 90 days (see chart below). In light of the above circumstances, and 

given that neither party has previously requested an extension of any of the pretrial dates set in this 

matter, pursuant to Rule 16(b)(4) good cause exists for the relief requested herein.

NOW THEREFORE, based on the foregoing, the parties respectfully request that the Court 

continue the pretrial deadlines in the following manner:

Subject Current Deadline Proposed New Deadline

Discovery Cut-Off January 22, 2016 April 22, 2016

Settlement Conference Statements February 11, 2016 May 12, 2016

Settlement Conference February 18, 2016 May 19, 2016

Disclosure of Expert Witnesses March 23, 2016 June 23, 2016

Case 2:14-cv-02471-MCE-DMC Document 16 Filed 12/02/15 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

RENNE SLOAN 

HOLTZMAN SAKAI LLP

Attorneys at Law

-3-

JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE PRETRIAL DEADLINES;

Case No. 2:14-CV-02471-MCE

Dispositive Motions July 14, 2016 October 20, 2016

Joint Final Pretrial Conference 

Statement

November 9, 2016 January 19, 2017

Evidentiary/Procedural Motions November 9, 2016 January 19, 2017

Trial Briefs November 16, 2016 January 26, 2017

Final Pretrial Conference December 1, 2016 February 9, 2017

Trial January 23, 2017 April 3, 2017

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

Dated: December 1, 2015 RENNE SLOAN HOLTZMAN SAKAI LLP

By: /s/ Timothy G. Yeung

Timothy G. Yeung

Attorneys for Defendants 

Dated: December 1, 2015 LAW OFFICES OF ANTHONY J. POIDMORE

By: /s/ Anthony J. Poidmore (as authorized on 11/17/15)

Anthony J. Poidmore

Attorney for Plaintiffs 

ORDER

The Court adopts the parties’ stipulation, with the dates modified by the Court, as its order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: December 1, 2015

Case 2:14-cv-02471-MCE-DMC Document 16 Filed 12/02/15 Page 3 of 3