Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01790/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01790-0/pdf.json

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

---

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

LAW OFFICE OF STEWART KATZ

STEWART KATZ, State Bar #127425 

555 University Avenue, Suite 270 

Sacramento, California 95825 

Telephone: (916) 444-5678 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

RANDOLPH, CREGGER & CHALFANT LLP 

ROBERT CHALFANT, State Bar #203051 

1030 G Street 

Sacramento, California 95814 

Telephone: (916) 443-4443 

Attorneys for Defendants 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

RICKY KIRK, 

 Plaintiff, 

vs. 

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, LOU 

BLANAS, MARK IWASA, JOHN 

O’SHAUGHNESSY, SANDA HAND, and 

SHELLIE JORDAN 

Defendants, 

______________________________________/ 

 

No. 2:05-cv-1790-MCE-GGH 

STIPULATION AND ORDER 

MODIFYING PRETRIAL 

SCHEDULING ORDER

 

COME NOW THE PARTIES by and through their respective parties and subject to 

the approval of this Court, hereby stipulate and respectfully request the following 

modifications and/or amendments to this Court’s Pretrial Scheduling Order of January 20, 

2006: 

• That Discovery be completed, as defined by the court with the exception of 

expert discovery, be completed by April 13, 2007. 

Case 2:05-cv-01790-MCE -GGH Document 13 Filed 02/05/07 Page 1 of 2
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

• That the Disclosure of Expert Witnesses, as set forth by the Court, be 

tendered no later than May 30, 2007 with the designation of any supplemental expert 

witnesses to, as set forth by the Court to be within 20 days thereafter. And that the 

depositions of any expert witnesses to be completed by July 30, 2007. 

The parties contend there is good cause for this request. The parties have been 

diligently conducting discovery in this matter. However, delays in locating documents and 

unexpected changes in the staffing of the offices of both Counsel as well as unanticipated 

time demands of other pending litigation have lead to the need for additional time to 

complete discovery. 

The parties do not anticipate the need for any further modification of the scheduling 

order and anticipate that these proposed changes will effect other milestones in the 

scheduling order and in fact that the additional time for discovery will allow the parties to 

sort out which parties and causes of action should go to trial and reduce or eliminate the 

need for motions for summary adjudication. 

Dated: January 26, 2007 RANDOLPH, CREGGER & CHALFANT 

 By: /s/ Robert Chalfant

 ROBERT CHALFANT 

 Attorneys for Defendants 

Dated: January 26, 2007 LAW OFFICE OF STEWART KATZ 

 By: /s/ Stewart Katz

 STEWART KATZ 

 Attorney for Plaintiff 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: February 5, 2007 

__________________________________ 

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 2:05-cv-01790-MCE -GGH Document 13 Filed 02/05/07 Page 2 of 2