Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-01807/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-01807-14/pdf.json

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

---

STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER 

CORRECTING RECORD ON APPEAL 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JERRY LUM, etc., et al., ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiffs, ) 

 ) 

 v. ) 

 ) 

COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN, et al., ) 

 ) 

 Defendants. ) 

 ) 

 ) 

 ) 

NO. 2:10-CV-01807-LKK- DAD 

USCA NO. 12-15979 

STIPULATION AND ORDER 

CORRECTING OMISSION AND 

MISSTATEMENT IN RECORD ON 

APPEAL 

[F.R.A.P. 10(e)(2)(A)] 

[No hearing required] 

DANA A. SUNTAG (State Bar #125127)

JOSHUA J. STEVENS (State Bar # 238105) 

ZOEY P. MERRILL (State Bar #268331) 

THE SUNTAG LAW FIRM 

A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 

The Kress Building 

20 North Sutter Street, Fourth Floor 

Stockton, California 95202 

Telephone: (209) 943-2004 

Facsimile: (209) 943-0905 

MATTHEW P. DACEY (State Bar #196943) 

OFFICE OF THE COUNTY COUNSEL OF SAN JOAQUIN 

Deputy County Counsel 

44 North San Joaquin Street, Suite 679 

Stockton, California 95202 

Telephone: (209) 468-2980 

Attorneys for All Defendants/Appellants 

Case 2:10-cv-01807-MCE-EFB Document 118 Filed 06/01/12 Page 1 of 4
STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER 

CORRECTING RECORD ON APPEAL 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

This stipulation and proposed order is entered into between all 

Plaintiffs/Appellees and all Defendants/Appellants. 

RECITALS 

A. On January 30, 2012, Defendants/Appellants filed their motion for 

summary judgment. (Doc. No. 71.) 

B. In their motion for summary judgment, Defendants/Appellants 

quoted, and included excerpts, from the deposition transcript of Plaintiffs/Appellees’ law 

enforcement expert, Stephen L. D’Arcy. Portions of Mr. D’Arcy’s deposition transcript 

were attached to the Declaration of Dana A. Suntag in Support of Defendants’ Motion 

for Summary Judgment as Exhibit Q. (Doc. No. 85.) 

C. On page 13, line 16, of Defendants/Appellants’ summary judgment 

motion, Defendants/Appellants incorrectly cited the portion of Mr. D’Arcy’s deposition 

transcript they were referring to, providing the citation “112:18-113:15, Ex. Q.” 

D. This was a clerical error; Defendants/Appellants meant instead to 

provide the citation “112:18-114:15, Ex. Q” to Mr. D’Arcy’s deposition transcript. 

E. Defendants/Appellants quoted the relevant (but missing) portions of 

page 114 of Mr. D’Arcy’s deposition transcript in their motion for summary judgment at 

page 13, lines 12-15, but inadvertently omitted page 114 from their Exhibit Q because of 

the incorrect citation. 

F. By order issued on March 23, 2012, the Court granted in part and 

denied in part portions of Defendants/Appellants’ summary judgment motion. 

(Doc. No. 107). On page 11, footnote 2, of the Court’s order, the Court called this 

omission to the parties’ attention. 

G. On April 20, 2012, Defendants/Appellants filed a timely notice of 

interlocutory appeal of the portions of the Court’s order denying their summary judgment 

motion. 

Case 2:10-cv-01807-MCE-EFB Document 118 Filed 06/01/12 Page 2 of 4
STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER 

CORRECTING RECORD ON APPEAL 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

H. Defendants/Appellants have attached to this stipulation as 

Exhibit Q-1 the correctly cited pages of Mr. D’Arcy’s deposition transcript, including the 

previously omitted page 114. 

I. For the above reasons, given the inadvertent clerical error causing 

Defendants/Appellants to misstate their citation to Mr. D’Arcy’s deposition transcript and 

omit page 114 of his deposition transcript from Exhibit Q, the parties respectfully 

request the Court to correct the record on appeal in this matter and incorporate 

Exhibit Q-1 into a supplemental record, and to certify and forward the supplemental 

record to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. 

STIPULATION 

IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED, by the parties, through their counsel 

of record, that the record on appeal be corrected and supplemented to include 

Exhibit Q-1, attached. 

IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED, by the parties, through 

their counsel of record, that the Court certify this supplemental record incorporating 

Exhibit Q-1 and forward the supplemental record to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. 

Dated: May 1, 2012 THE SUNTAG LAW FIRM 

 A Professional Corporation 

 By: __/s/ Dana A. Suntag____________ DANA A. SUNTAG 

Attorneys for All 

Defendants/Appellants 

Dated: May 1, 2012 WALKER, HAMILTON & KOENIG LLP 

By: __/s/ Rana Ansari-Jaberi_________

RANA ANSARI-JABERI 

Attorneys for All 

Plaintiffs/Appellees 

Case 2:10-cv-01807-MCE-EFB Document 118 Filed 06/01/12 Page 3 of 4
STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER 

CORRECTING RECORD ON APPEAL 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

O R D E R 

It is so ordered. 

The record on appeal shall be corrected and supplemented to incorporate 

Exhibit Q-1, attached. The supplemental record incorporating Exhibit Q-1 is certified 

by this Court and shall be forwarded to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. 

Dated: May 31, 2012. 

Case 2:10-cv-01807-MCE-EFB Document 118 Filed 06/01/12 Page 4 of 4