Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00541/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00541-24/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: 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

1

Stipulation to Amend Scheduling Order (1:13-cv-00541-LJO-BAM)

KAMALA D. HARRIS, State Bar No. 146672

Attorney General of California

JUDITH A. RECCHIO, State Bar No. 163060

Supervising Deputy Attorney General

AMY LINDSEY DOYLE State Bar No. 242205

Deputy Attorney General

MATTHEW T. BESMER, State Bar No. 269138

Deputy Attorney General

2550 Mariposa Mall, Room 5090

Fresno, CA 93721

Telephone: (559) 477-1680

Fax: (559) 445-5106

E-mail: Matthew.Besmer@doj.ca.gov

Attorneys for Defendants Department of 

Developmental Services, Douglas Loehner and 

Michael Flores

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRESNO DIVISION

YVONNE ARCURE, KEVIN COOK, & 

JOSEPH FESSENDEN,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 

DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES, 

DEBORAH MEEKER, JEFFREY 

BRADLEY, DOUGLAS LOEHNER, 

DAVID CORRAL, & MICHAEL FLORES,

Defendants.

1:13-cv-00541-LJO-MJS

STIPULATION TO AMEND 

SCHEDULING ORDER

BACKGROUND

This action was filed on April 16, 2013. Doc. 1. It began with five plaintiffs against 

seven defendants. Id. Two plaintiffs, Lisa Huff and Kathren Woodside, settled their claims on 

September 23, 2013. Doc. 44. Defendant Department of Developmental Services (“DDS”) 

settled the claims of Plaintiffs Yvonne Arcure and Joseph Fessenden on April 8, 2015. With the 

Case 1:13-cv-00541-MJS Document 193 Filed 07/13/15 Page 1 of 5
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

Stipulation to Amend Scheduling Order (1:13-cv-00541-LJO-BAM)

exception of Jeffery Bradley, all of the individual defendants have been or will be dismissed. 

Presently there is one remaining plaintiff, Kevin Cook (“Cook”) who is represented by 

Lawrence J. King, and two remaining defendants, DDS, represented by the California Attorney 

General, and Jeffery Bradley (“Bradley”) who is proceeding pro se. Cook alleges three causes of 

action: two for retaliation under the FEHA and Title VII against DDS; and one under the 

California Whistleblower Protection Act against DDS and Bradley. 

The final consent to magistrate jurisdiction was filed by Bradley on June 23, 2015 (Doc. 

184), and this case was assigned to Magistrate Seng (Doc. 185).

FACT DISCOVERY

With few exceptions, fact discovery closed on March 2, 2015. Doc. 117. Before then, 

DDS had started Bradley’s deposition and the parties agreed to reconvene for a second day. 

DDS served a deposition notice for day two for February 18, 2015, and plaintiffs served their 

deposition notice before the discover cutoff. At the time, criminal charges against Bradley were 

pending and Bradley stated he was unavailable for further deposition until those charges were 

resolved. Since then, the criminal matter has resolved. As a result, the parties need to reopen 

discovery for purposes of completing Bradley’s deposition. 

EXPERT DISCOVERY

Expert disclosures were due on April 1, 2015, and expert discovery closed on June 1, 

2015. Doc. 117. By agreement, DDS and the plaintiffs postponed expert disclosures to reduce 

costs because settlement became a strong possibility, and indeed, DDS settled with two of the 

three remaining individual plaintiffs on April 8, 2015. While the parties remain optimistic that 

they may reach a settlement on Cook’s claims, the parties need to reopen expert discovery in 

order to get a clearer read concerning Cook’s economic damages. Such discovery may assist the 

parties in reaching a settlement of Cook’s claims. In addition, such discovery will be necessary to 

prepare the parties for trial in the event the parties do not settle Cook’s claims.

SUMMARY JUDGMENT DUE DATE

Motions for summary judgment are due on July 10, 2015. Doc. 117. DDS’s counsel, 

Matthew Besmer, was in trial in the matter of Sanchez v .State of California, District Court for 

Case 1:13-cv-00541-MJS Document 193 Filed 07/13/15 Page 2 of 5
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

3

Stipulation to Amend Scheduling Order (1:13-cv-00541-LJO-BAM)

the Eastern District of California, Case No. 1:12-cv-01835-SAB from May 27, 2015, through 

June 11, 2015. He is presently consumed by post-trial matters. From June 22, 2015, through 

June 26, 2015, he was performing military duty. These conflicts have made timely preparing a 

motion for summary judgment challenging, and his co-counsel, Amy LindseyDoyle has likewise 

been consumed by other matters. As a result, DDS needs to continue the motion for summary 

judgment filing date. 

TRIAL DATES

A 10 to 15 day jury trial is scheduled to begin on November 17, 2015. DDS’s counsel, 

Amy LindseyDoyle, is pregnant and is scheduled to be off work on maternity leave from October 

15, 2015, through January 31, 2016. DDS contends that both Mr. Besmer and Ms. LindseyDoyle 

are needed to serve on the trial team to properly defend against Cook’s claims. As a result, DDS 

needs to continue the trial dates.

BASED ON THE FOREGOING, the parties stipulate as follows:

1. Defendant DDS shall take its second day of Bradley’s deposition on before 

October 2, 2015; Plaintiff Cook shall take two days of Bradley’s deposition on October 6 & 7, 

2015.

2. Expert disclosures are due by October 1, 2015, supplemental disclosures are due 

by December 15, 2015, and expert discovery closes on January 15, 2016.

3. Motions for summary judgment are due on or before November 1, 2015. 

Oppositions are due on December 1, 2015; Replies are due on December 15, 2015.

4. The parties shall appear at a telephonic status conference for the purpose of setting 

a new trial date in light of this stipulation. 

/ / / 

/ / /

/ / /

Case 1:13-cv-00541-MJS Document 193 Filed 07/13/15 Page 3 of 5
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

4

Stipulation to Amend Scheduling Order (1:13-cv-00541-LJO-BAM)

SO STIPULATED. 

Dated: July 8, 2015 Respectfully submitted,

KAMALA D. HARRIS

Attorney General of California

JUDITH A. RECCHIO

Supervising Deputy Attorney General

/s/ Matthew T. Besmer

MATTHEW T. BESMER

Deputy Attorney General

Attorneys for Defendants

Dated: July 8, 2015 LAW OFFICES OF LAWRENCE J. KING

/s/ Lawrence J. King

 ____________________________________

 Lawrence J. King 

 Attorney for Plaintiff

Dated: July 7, 2015 /s/ Jeffrey Bradley 

 ____________________________________

 Jeffrey Bradley, Pro Per

 Defendant

 

Case 1:13-cv-00541-MJS Document 193 Filed 07/13/15 Page 4 of 5
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

Stipulation to Amend Scheduling Order (1:13-cv-00541-LJO-BAM)

ORDER

Good cause appearing on the parties’ Stipulation to Amend Scheduling Order, it is hereby 

ORDERED that:

1. The second day of Bradley’s deposition by Defendant shall be taken on or before 

October 2, 2015; Plaintiff shall take two days of Bradley’s deposition on October 6 & 7, 2015.

2. Expert disclosures are due by October 1, 2015, supplemental disclosures are due 

by December 15, 2015, and expert discovery closes on January 15, 2016.

3. Motions for summary judgment are due on or before November 1, 2015. 

Oppositions are due on December, 1, 2015; Replies are due on December 15, 2015.

4. A telephonic conference shall be held on January 7, 2016 at 10:00 AM for the 

purpose of setting a new trial date in light of this stipulation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 10, 2015 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00541-MJS Document 193 Filed 07/13/15 Page 5 of 5