Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01588/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01588-11/pdf.json

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

---

AMENDED STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO MODIFY THE PRETRIAL SCHEDULING 

ORDER TO ALLOW FOR PHASED DISCOVERY 

Page 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

LONGYEAR, O’DEA & LAVRA, LLP 

John A. Lavra, CSB No.: 114533 

Amanda L. McDermott, CSB No.: 253651 

3620 American River Drive, Suite 230 

Sacramento, CA 95864 

Phone: 916-974-8500 

Facsimile: 916-974-8510 

Attorneys for Defendants 

County of Sacramento; 

Stephanie Lynch; 

Michelle Callejas; 

Debra Williams; 

Renae Rodocker; 

Luis Villa; and 

Craig Larkin 

LEIGH LAW GROUP, P.C. 

Jay T. Jambeck SBN #226018 

Mandy G. Leigh SBN # 225748 

870 Market Street, Suite 1157 

San Francisco, CA 94102 

Telephone: 415-399-9155 

Facsimile: 415-795-3733 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

A.P. (a minor); Robin Mammen 

and Larry Mammen individually 

and as Guardian Ad Litem 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SACRAMENTO DIVISION 

A.P. (a minor); ROBIN MAMMEN and 

LARRY MAMMEN individually and as 

Guardian ad Litem for A.P., 

 Plaintiffs, 

 vs. 

COMMUNITY CARE LICENSING, 

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, STEPHANIE 

LYNCH, LUIS VILLA; MICHELLE 

CALLEJAS, DEBRA WILLIAMS, CRAIG 

LARKIN, RENAE RODOCKER, 

 Defendants. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

Case No.: 2:13-cv-01588-JAM-AC 

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO 

MODIFY THE PRETRIAL SCHEDULING 

ORDER TO ALLOW FOR PHASED 

DISCOVERY 

Case 2:13-cv-01588-JAM-DB Document 74 Filed 09/21/16 Page 1 of 4
AMENDED STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO MODIFY THE PRETRIAL SCHEDULING 

ORDER TO ALLOW FOR PHASED DISCOVERY 

Page 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

COMES NOW THE PARTIES by and through their respective counsel and subject to the 

approval of this Court, hereby stipulate and respectfully request that this Court’s Pretrial 

Scheduling Order dated July 12, 2016 [ECF No. 68], be modified to reflect new deadlines as 

follows, or as to accommodate the Court’s docket, in order for the parties to conduct phased 

discovery moving forward: 

Current Schedule 

Expert Disclosure: Oct. 17, 2016 

Supplemental Expert Disclosure: Oct. 31, 2016 

Close of All Discovery: Nov. 21, 2016 

Filing of Dispositive Motions: Dec. 21, 2016 

Hearing of Dispositive Motions: Jan. 24, 2017, at 1:30p 

Joint Pretrial Statement: June 2, 2017 

Final Pretrial Conference: June 9, 2017 at 11:00a 

Trial: July 17, 2017 

 

Proposed New Schedule

Close of Phase 1 Discovery: Nov. 21, 2016 

Filing of Dispositive Motions, Phase 1: Dec. 21, 2016 

Hearing of Dispositive Motions, Phase 1: Jan. 24, 2017, at 1:30p 

Expert Disclosure: June 8, 2017 

Supplemental Expert Disclosure: June 29. 2017 

Close of Phase 2 Discovery: July 24, 2017 

Filing of Dispositive Motion, Phase 2: August 22, 2017 

Hearing of Dispositive Motions, Phase 2: September 19, 2017, at 1:30p 

Joint Pretrial Statement: December 1, 2017 

Final Pretrial Conference: December 8, 2017, at 11:00a 

Trial: January 8, 2018 at 9:00 a.m. 

Case 2:13-cv-01588-JAM-DB Document 74 Filed 09/21/16 Page 2 of 4
AMENDED STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO MODIFY THE PRETRIAL SCHEDULING 

ORDER TO ALLOW FOR PHASED DISCOVERY 

Page 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, counsel for all parties have met and discussed the posture of this case, and 

agree that it would be in the interests of justice and judicial economy and that good causes exists 

for the modification of the scheduling order; 

 WHEREAS, the parties participated in a judicially supervised settlement conference with 

Magistrate Judge Carolyn Delaney on September 9, 2016, but were unable to reach a settlement; 

 WHEREAS, during the settlement conference on September 9, the parties discussed with 

Judge Delaney, and she approved, the possibility of conducting phased discovery moving 

forward in order for the parties to conduct limited fact discovery prior to Defendants filing their 

motion for summary judgment, and postponing expert discovery and any other fact discovery 

depending on the outcome of Defendants’ motion; 

 WHEREAS, allowing the parties to extend the deadlines as requested will save the 

parties time and expenses in an effort to resolve the purely legal questions incumbent in this 

case; 

 WHEREAS, this request is not being made for the purpose of delay, or any other 

improper purpose; 

 WHEREAS, continuing the trial date and pretrial deadlines will not prejudice any party 

or their counsel; and 

THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED and agreed by and between the parties 

that this Court modifies the pretrial deadlines and trial date as set forth above. 

IT IS SO STIPULATED. 

Dated: September 20, 2016 LONGYEAR, O’DEA & LAVRA, LLP 

 By: /s/ Amanda L. McDermott JOHN A. LAVRA 

AMANDA L. MCDERMOTT 

Attorneys for Defendants 

Case 2:13-cv-01588-JAM-DB Document 74 Filed 09/21/16 Page 3 of 4
AMENDED STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO MODIFY THE PRETRIAL SCHEDULING 

ORDER TO ALLOW FOR PHASED DISCOVERY 

Page 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

 

Dated: September 20, 2016 LEIGH LAW GROUP, P.C. 

 By: /s/ Jay T. Jambeck

JAY T. JAMBECK 

MANDY G. LEIGH 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 9/21/2016____________ /s/ John A. Mendez

JOHN A. MENDEZ 

United States District Court Judge 

Case 2:13-cv-01588-JAM-DB Document 74 Filed 09/21/16 Page 4 of 4