Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01283/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01283-2/pdf.json

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

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JASON EUGENE DEOCAMPO, et al.,

Plaintiffs, CIV. NO. S- 06-1283 WBS GGH 

vs.

CITY OF VALLEJO, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Before the court are no less than four proposed orders stipulating to extensions of

the discovery cutoff in this case. Some of them are virtually illegible because they are not in

proper word processing format, and are incapable of being filed. Some are slightly different in

substance from others. After the court contacted the parties to re-submit one of the documents in

word processing format, a new version of the proposed order was emailed to the court, and was

different than any of the previous three submissions. Therefore, rather than requiring the parties

to submit another version of the order which may either be illegible or different in text from the

previous submissions, thereby further muddling the already confusing docket, the instant order

encompasses all of the heretofore proposed orders (docket numbers 30, 35, and 37 and the

emailed version which was not docketed), which will now be disregarded. 

/////

Case 2:06-cv-01283-WBS-CMK Document 39 Filed 05/10/07 Page 1 of 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

2

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Proposed orders submitted to the court on April 5, 25 and 27, 2007 (docket

numbers 30, 35, and 37) as well as an emailed version submitted separately to chambers, are

disregarded.

2. The second, third, and fourth paragraphs of Section IV of the September 19,

2006, scheduling order, as amended by the September 29, 2006 order, are amended as follows:

The parties shall disclose experts and produce reports in accordance with Fed. R.

Civ. P. 26(a)(2), by no later than July 9, 2007, one hundred and twenty (120) days before the trial

date of November 6, 2007. 

With regard to expert testimony intended solely for rebuttal, those experts shall be

disclosed, and reports produced in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2), by no later than July

27, 2007, one hundred and two (102) days before trial date.

All discovery, including depositions for preservation of testimony, is left open,

save and except that it shall be so conducted as to be completed by June 8, 2007 for all nonexpert discovery except Monell related discovery, that Monell related discovery will be due, if at

all, pursuant to the court’s order after making its ruling on defendant’ motion to bifurcate which

is scheduled for May 29, 2007. Expert discovery is to be completed by August 8, 2007, ninety

(90) days before the trial date of November 6, 2007.

3. Nothing in this order is intended to modify the previously ordered nondiscovery motion deadline.

DATED: 5/10/07

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

 U. S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:076:Deocampo1283.sch.wpd

Case 2:06-cv-01283-WBS-CMK Document 39 Filed 05/10/07 Page 2 of 2