Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-05751/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-05751-6/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KIMBERLY MARIE CURIEL, FREDERICK

MICHAEL CURIEL, MARIA THERESE CURIEL,

a minor, by and through her guardian ad litem

Kimberly Marie Curiel, TINA ALISIA CURIEL, a

minor, by an through her guardian ad litem

Kimberly Marie Curiel, JULIA MICHELLE

CURIEL, a minor, by and through her guardian ad

litem Kimberly Marie Curiel, HAZEL ANNE

McCLURE, MICHAEL JASON SIKKEMA,

DAGAN ALEXANDER McCLURE-SIKKEMA, a

minor, by and through his guardian ad litem Hazel

Anne McClure, CELIA ROSE

McCLURE-SIKKEMA, a minor, by and through

her guardian ad litem Kimberly Marie Curiel,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, CONTRA

COSTA COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT

SERGEANTS j. MAHONEY and K. DALY, sued

in their individual capacities and as employees of

Contra Costa County, CONTR COSTA COUNTY

SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT DETECTIVES

JASON BARNES, SHAWN PATE, CLARK

CARY GOLBERG, MOORE, UYEDA, AND VAN

ZELF, sued in their individual capacities and as

employees of Contra Costa County, CONTRA

COSTA COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPUTIES

ARANDA AND HADLEY, sued in their individual

capacities and as employees of Contra Costa

County, SHERIFF WARREN RUPF,

CALIFORNIA AND DOES ONE through ONE

HUNDRED, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 06-05751 WHA

ORDER APPROVING

STIPULATION TO EXTEND

EXPERT DISCLOSURE AND

EXPERT DISCOVERY

CUTOFF

Case 3:06-cv-05751-WHA Document 42 Filed 06/26/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

The Court will go along with the expert disclosure and discovery extensions stipulated

to by parties, but only on the condition that no party may complain at summary judgment time

that they have not yet received an expert deposition transcript or other material that would have

been available had the original schedule been honored. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 26, 2007. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-05751-WHA Document 42 Filed 06/26/07 Page 2 of 2