Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01258/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01258-20/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination)

---

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

ANGELA ALIOTO (SBN 130328)

STEVEN L. ROBINSON (SBN 116146)

LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH L. ALIOTO 

AND ANGELA ALIOTO

700 Montgomery Street

San Francisco, CA 94111

Telephone: (415) 434-8700

Facsimile: (415) 438-4638

Attorneys for Plaintiff Tyrone Watson

McGREGOR W. SCOTT

United States Attorney

BRIAN W. ENOS

Assistant United States Attorney

United States Courthouse

2500 Tulare Street, Suite 4401

Fresno, California 93721

Telephone: (559) 497-4000

Facsimile: (559) 497-4099

Attorneys for Defendant Henry M. Paulson, Secretary 

of United States Department of Treasury

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KENNETH ROBINSON, et al., ) 

) 

)

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. )

)

HENRY M. PAULSON, SECRETARY, )

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF )

TREASURY, )

)

Defendant. )

 )

1:05-cv-01258-LJO-GSA

STIPULATION TO EXTEND

LITIGATION SCHEDULE INCLUDING

TRIAL DATE; [PROPOSED] ORDER RE

SAME

Plaintiff Tyrone Watson (“plaintiff”) and defendant Henry M.

Paulson (“defendant”), through their counsel of record in this

action, stipulate as follows:

Case 1:05-cv-01258-LJO -SKO Document 98 Filed 02/26/08 Page 1 of 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

2

WHEREAS, this case originated as a multiple plaintiff case

of employment discrimination which has since developed an immense

documentary record.

WHEREAS, pursuant to two court rulings in November and

December 2007, only plaintiff Tyrone Watson remains as a

plaintiff. For purposes of this stipulation, these rulings

enabled the parties to identify remaining necessary discovery, as

well as focus their subsequent discovery efforts on plaintiff

Watson’s remaining claims. (Doc. 78, Doc. 87) In fact, by January

4, 2008, the parties analyzed and conferred about the remaining

necessary discovery regarding plaintiff Watson’s claims and

stipulated to modify upward the number of allowable depositions

relating to these claims from ten to thirteen. (Doc. 91) The

Court endorsed this stipulation by way of formal order on January

8, 2008. (Doc. 92)

WHEREAS, through the parties’ diligence and cooperation, all

depositions of non-expert witnesses were taken and completed by

February 2008. The parties were able to complete this discovery,

(1) despite facing a multitude of logistical challenges over the

holiday season, (2) scheduling depositions of witnesses who

reside out of state, (3) negotiating a case file including

thousands of documents, as well as (4) defendant’s (unexpectedly)

needing two full days in January and February 2008 by which to

complete plaintiff’s deposition. 

WHEREAS, in large part due to the above exigencies, this

action’s October 26, 2007 and January 17, 2008 scheduling orders

collectively contain the following litigation deadlines relevant

Case 1:05-cv-01258-LJO -SKO Document 98 Filed 02/26/08 Page 2 of 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

To date, plaintiff disclosed an expert economist by his February 14, 1

2008 deadline. Defendant will be disclosing a rebuttal economist by its

disclosure deadline on March 11, 2008.

3

to this stipulation: (1) dispositive motion filing deadline -

February 15, 2008; (2) supplemental/rebuttal expert disclosure -

March 11, 2008; (3) pretrial conference - March 17, 2008; (4)

close of expert discovery - April 3, 2008; and (5) trial - April

29, 2008 (Docs. 74, 95).

WHEREAS, although no settlement conference is currently set

in this action, the parties believe and agree, in light of having

completed discovery, that it would be prudent to attempt to

resolve this case in advance of trial through a settlement

conference other dispute resolution process. The parties

anticipate agreeing to the logistics of this process within a

week. In order to maximize its productivity, the parties also

stipulate and agree to participate in such a process in April

2008, and before dispositive motions are filed and after experts

have been deposed.1

WHEREAS, the parties have diligently pursued discovery and

cooperatively litigated this matter, both before and subsequent

to the above court rulings. 

WHEREAS, despite both parties’ diligence and cooperation,

brief extensions of this action’s dispositive motion filing

deadline, pretrial conference date and trial date are necessary. 

An extension of this action’s dispositive motion deadline is

necessary in order to enable the parties an opportunity to

resolve this matter by way of a settlement conference or

mediation absent the expense and time required of filing and

Case 1:05-cv-01258-LJO -SKO Document 98 Filed 02/26/08 Page 3 of 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

In addition, defendant’s expert is unable to prepare his economist 2

report early, in that plaintiff Watson’s deposition was not completed until

the first week of February and the second half of his deposition transcript

(which heavily addressed damages issues) has not yet arrived from the court

reporter.

4

ruling on such motions. An extension of this action’s pretrial

conference is also independently necessary, because the parties’

deadline by which to file timely joint pretrial statements

precedes both the close of expert discovery, as well as

defendant’s rebuttal disclosure date. As a result, these 2

statements would have to be prepared absent the parties’ ability

to contemplate expert opinions, or their bases for the same. 

Finally, a brief (less than two months) extension of this

action’s trial date is necessary, so that the parties have

sufficient time to prepare for trial in accordance with the

Court’s pretrial order that would be issued after the continued

pretrial conference. 

WHEREAS, after discussing the above issues with plaintiff’s

counsel in detail, counsel for defendant contacted the Court’s

chambers about this issue last week, and asked whether the

parties should address the above issues with the Court through a

stipulation or a teleconference. Through this contact, the

parties understand that they could address these issues with the

Court through this stipulation so long as they based their

requests on good cause. They also understand that they could

pick a Monday in late June 2008 by which to agree to a continued

trial date. Such a date is specified below.

WHEREAS, in light of the ample good cause bases set forth

above and as specifically detailed below, the parties request

Case 1:05-cv-01258-LJO -SKO Document 98 Filed 02/26/08 Page 4 of 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

5

that the dispositive motion filing deadline, pretrial conference

and trial date each be briefly extended.

THEREFORE, the parties stipulate that it is in the best

interest of all parties and in the interests of justice

generally, that the following deadlines be extended as follows,

and that the Court endorse this stipulation by way of formal

order:

Old Date New Date (May differ

from parties’

stipulation)

Dispute Resolution Conf: None Set April 2008 (to be

agreed by the

parties)

Dispositive Motion February 15, 2008 April 18, 2008

Filing Deadline:

Pretrial Conference: March 17, 2008 June 3, 2008 at

8:30am

Trial: April 29, 2008 June 23, 2008 at

9:00am

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: February 22, 2008 THE LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH L.

ALIOTO & ANGELA ALIOTO

 

(As authorized 2/22/08)

 

 /s/ Steven L. Robinson 

By: Steven L. Robinson

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Dated: February 22, 2008 McGREGOR W. SCOTT

United States Attorney

By: /s/ Brian W. Enos 

Case 1:05-cv-01258-LJO -SKO Document 98 Filed 02/26/08 Page 5 of 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

6

BRIAN W. ENOS

Assistant U.S. Attorney

Attorneys for Defendant

ORDER

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 25, 2008 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

66h44d UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01258-LJO -SKO Document 98 Filed 02/26/08 Page 6 of 6