Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00127/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00127-3/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IDALIA J. MORGUTIA-JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF FRESNO, CHIEF JERRY 

DYER, SERGEANT LARRY 

HUSTEDDE, OFFICER JEFFREY 

KAISER, and DOES 1 to 10,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:14-CV-00127 LJO-SKO

[Hon. Lawrence J. O’Neill, D. Judge; 

Hon. Sheila K. Oberto, M. Judge]

STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES 

AND JOINT REQUEST FOR 

ORDER CONTINUING AND 

RESETTING NON-EXPERT 

DISCOVERY DEADLINE DATE, 

NOT EFFECTING TRIAL DATE; 

ORDER

Complaint Filed: 01/28/2014

Trial Date: 06/09/2015

TO THE HONORABLE COURT:

By and through their counsel of record in this action, plaintiff IDALIA J. 

MORGUTIA-JOHNSON and defendants CITY OF FRESNO, CHIEF JERRY 

DYER, SERGEANT LARRY HUSTEDDE, AND OFFICER JEFFREY KAISER 

(“defendants”) – the parties – by and through their respective attorneys of record, 

hereby stipulate for the purpose of jointly requesting that the honorable Court enter 

an Order continuing, resetting, and modifying the pending case management date as 

to the Non-Expert Discovery Deadline only, not changing the current trial date (and 

pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 16, 26, and 40, as well as, to the extent 

applicable, United States District Court, Eastern District of California Local Rule 

143, 144, 240, and 281-285) as follows:

Case 1:14-cv-00127-LJO-SKO Document 21 Filed 01/06/15 Page 1 of 8
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

GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT.

1. As a result of a trial of another matter involving the same attorneys 

(Ms. O'Linn and Mr. Gonzales), as well as multiple good faith attempts to schedule 

depositions of witnesses in this matter, and in light of unanticipated substitution 

issues for plaintiff that delayed prosecution of the discovery process, the parties 

have been unable to complete discovery in this case and will not be able to do so 

under the operative case management deadline that set the non-expert discovery 

deadline as January 5, 2015. Defendants have successfully been able to depose 

plaintiff as well as three other witnesses to the incident, to date. Defendants have 

noticed and scheduled two more incident-witness depositions for after the New 

Year. Defendants' are also trying to re-schedule a deposition of a non-retained 

expert witness as to plaintiff's damages in this action. Further, defendants have 

attempted to serve three other incident-witnesses for their deposition, but have been 

unable to do so as a result of obtaining incorrect addresses from plaintiff to date. 

Further, plaintiff has set the depositions of the defendant-officers for January 6, 

2015. As a result of, the parties will be unable to complete defendants' depositions 

and incident-witness depositions under the current deadline of January 5, 2015. 

Accordingly, the parties are jointly requesting a brief, three week continuance as

stated herein below that will not affect the trial date. 

2. This is a civil rights case involving allegations of unreasonable search 

and seizure, excessive use of force, municipality liability, supervisorial liability and 

malicious prosecution. 

3. The parties timely exchanged initial disclosures. In July 2014, 

defendants served written discovery requests. After requests for extensions of time, 

in October 2014, plaintiff served responses to such requests, including production of 

certain documents such as medical records. Plaintiff has not yet taken any 

depositions to date. In November 2014, defendants noticed the depositions of 

plaintiff and non-party witnesses for dates in December 2014. To date, defendants 

Case 1:14-cv-00127-LJO-SKO Document 21 Filed 01/06/15 Page 2 of 8
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

have taken four depositions, including that of plaintiff. Defendants have noticed and 

anticipate taking further depositions of incident-witnesses and damages-witnesses, 

however, locating and scheduling those deponents has proved difficult. Plaintiff has 

noticed and scheduled the depositions of the defendant-officers taking into 

consideration their scheduling and availability issues. The earliest mutually 

available date is January 6, 2015.

4. Discovery in this action has been delayed in part due to the issue of the 

potential substitution and anticipated withdrawal of plaintiff's counsel. Essentially, 

beginning about mid-August 2014, plaintiffs' counsel of record in this action 

advised defense counsel that they had been informed that their client was retaining 

substitute counsel for this matter and that plaintiffs' counsel of record were thus 

preparing to file a motion to withdraw. In mid-October 2014, plaintiff's counsel of 

record advised defendants' counsel of record that it appeared plaintiff had changed 

her mind and no longer planned to retain substitute counsel – and thus plaintiff's

counsel of record would not be filing the anticipated withdrawal motion. 

5. The parties have met and conferred regarding an issue of plaintiff's 

juvenile court records that had been requested by defendants in preparation of this 

trial. Plaintiff's counsel intentionally objected to defendants' request and stipulation 

for the Court records and therefore, defendants filed the appropriate moving papers 

with the Fresno County Superior Court – Juvenile Division, on October 14, 2014, 

requesting the release of the records in order to obtain information relevant to the 

pending claims against defendants in this matter. That objection delayed production 

of records that are potentially pertinent to plaintiff's incident claims, particularly her 

malicious prosecution claims.

///

6. In light of the above-mentioned issues, the parties hereby stipulate that 

there is Good Cause here for, and in good faith jointly request that, the Court 

continue the operative case management deadlines as to the non-expert discovery 

Case 1:14-cv-00127-LJO-SKO Document 21 Filed 01/06/15 Page 3 of 8
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

and expert disclosure deadline in this matter by 21 days in a manner comparable to 

the specific request herein after. 

///

///

///

Case 1:14-cv-00127-LJO-SKO Document 21 Filed 01/06/15 Page 4 of 8
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 FOR CONTINUANCE & SCHEDULING MODIFICATION.

7. Accordingly, in light of the foregoing Good Cause, the parties hereby 

stipulate to and jointly request that the Court issue an Order modifying the operative 

Scheduling Order in this case, and the related case management dates, specifically to 

the non-expert discovery deadline, along the following lines and/or in a manner 

comparable to the following proposed amended schedule: 

Case Management Event: Prior-Operative DateDeadline:NEW DateDeadline:

Non-Expert Discovery Deadline January 5, 2015 January 26, 2015

Expert Disclosures January 16, 2015 January 26, 2015

Rebuttal-Supplemental Expert 

Disclosures

February 18, 2015 No Modification

Expert Discovery Deadline March 11, 2015 No Modification

Non-Dispositive Motion Filing 

Deadline

March 11, 2015 No Modification

Dispositive Motion (MSJ) Filing 

Deadline

March 18, 2015 No Modification

Non-Dispositive Motion Hearing 

Deadline

April 8, 2015 No Modification

Dispositive Motion (MSJ) Hearing 

Deadline

April 15, 2015 No Modification

Settlement Conference April 13, 2015, 10:30 

a.m., Ctrm 9

No Modification

Final Pre-Trial Conference May 13, 2015, 8:15 

a.m., Ctrm 4

No Modification

TRIAL June 9, 2015, 8:30 

a.m., Ctrm 4 (7-10 trial 

days)

No Modification

8. Nothing in this Stipulation or any associated Order shall be construed 

as vacating, rescinding, amending, or modifying (in whole or in part) the Court’s 

operative protective order re confidential documents [Dkt. Doc. 16]. 

///

///

///

Case 1:14-cv-00127-LJO-SKO Document 21 Filed 01/06/15 Page 5 of 8
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

6

9. This Stipulation may be signed in counterpart and a facsimile or 

electronic signature shall be as valid as an original signature. 

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

Dated: December 22, 2014 MANNING & KASS

ELLROD, RAMIREZ, TRESTER, LLP

By: /s/ Courtney R. Arbucci 

Mildred K. O’Linn, Esq.

Courtney R. Arbucci, Esq.

Attorneys for Defendants,

CITY OF FRESNO, CHIEF JERRY DYER, 

SERGEANT LARRY HUSTEDDE, AND 

OFFICER JEFFREY KAISER

Dated: December 22, 2014 LAW OFFICES OF VICKI SARMIENTO 

AND JORGE GONZALEZ

By: /s/ Jorge Gonzalez

Vicki Sarmiento, Esq. 

Jorge Gonzalez, Esq. 

Attorneys for Plaintiff,

IDALIA J. MORGUTIA-JOHNSON

Case 1:14-cv-00127-LJO-SKO Document 21 Filed 01/06/15 Page 6 of 8
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

7

ORDER FOR MODIFICATION OF SCHEDULING ORDER

PURSUANT TO THE STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES, after due 

consideration of all of the relevant pleadings, papers, and records in this action; and 

upon such other oral and documentary evidence or argument as was presented to the 

Court, pursuant to the Court’s inherent and statutory powers, including not limited 

to the applicable provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and all 

applicable federal laws and Local Rules of the U.S. District Court, Eastern District 

of California; Good Cause appearing therefor, and in furtherance of the interests of 

justice,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Court hereby orders that the Court’s Scheduling Order of 

November 6, 2014 [Dkt. Doc. 19] and, to the extent applicable, the Court’s Standing 

Order [Dkt. Doc. 3-1] and/or all prior scheduling orders issued in this action, are 

hereby modified, continued, and reset to the following case management schedule:

Case Management Event: Prior-Operative DateDeadline:NEW DateDeadline:

Non-Expert Discovery Deadline January 5, 2015 January 26, 2015

Expert Disclosures January 16, 2015 January 26, 2015

Rebuttal-Supplemental Expert 

Disclosures

February 18, 2015 No Modification

Expert Discovery Deadline March 11, 2015 No Modification

Non-Dispositive Motion Filing 

Deadline

March 11, 2015 No Modification

Dispositive Motion (MSJ) Filing 

Deadline

March 18, 2015 No Modification

Non-Dispositive Motion Hearing 

Deadline

April 8, 2015 No Modification

Dispositive Motion (MSJ) Hearing 

Deadline

April 15, 2015 No Modification

Settlement Conference April 13, 2015, 10:30 

a.m., Ctrm 9

No Modification

Final Pre-Trial Conference May 13, 2015, 8:15 

a.m., Ctrm 4

No Modification

TRIAL June 9, 2015, 8:30 No Modification

Case 1:14-cv-00127-LJO-SKO Document 21 Filed 01/06/15 Page 7 of 8
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

8

Case Management Event: Prior-Operative DateDeadline:NEW DateDeadline:

a.m., Ctrm 4 (7-10 trial 

days)

2. Nothing in this Order shall be construed as vacating, rescinding, 

amending, or modifying (in whole or in part) the Court’s operative protective order 

re confidential documents [Dkt. Doc. 27].

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 6, 2015 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00127-LJO-SKO Document 21 Filed 01/06/15 Page 8 of 8