Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-05031/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-05031-7/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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VLADIMIR JEFFERSON,

Plaintiff,

 v.

COUNTY OF NAPA, et al,

Defendants. /

No. C 03-5031 SI

ORDER RE: APPLICATIONS FOR

REVISION OF BRIEFING SCHEDULE

FOR DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS AND/OR

TRIAL DATE

The Court has reviewed defendants’ application to revise the briefing schedule for dispositive

motions (docket #59) and plaintiffs’ response to that application and “counter-motion requesting the trial

date be vacated and related dates be re-set.” (docket #60). 

1. Dispositive motion schedule: The briefing schedule for dispositive motions is revised only as

follows:

Motions to be filed: November 5, 2007;

Oppositions to be filed: November 16, 2007;

Replies to be filed: November 23, 2007; 

Hearing to be held 

(no change): November 30, 2007, at 9:00 a.m.

Pretrial statements due: December 11, 2007.

2. Discovery cut-off: Plaintiffs assert in their counter-motion that they properly noticed the

depositions of “defense witnesses” (identities not specified) for September 19 and 20, 2007; that defense

counsel “unilaterally” vacated the depositions; and that these depositions have not yet been taken. The

Case 3:03-cv-05031-SI Document 62 Filed 09/27/07 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 1

Plaintiffs’ counsel states that Vladimir is 11 years old, but that does not appear correct.

2

discovery cut-off is September 28, 2007. Plaintiffs’ counsel also relates that he is in trial, evidently in

Texas, at present. Accordingly, the discovery cut-off for those “defense witnesses” whose depositions

were properly noticed by plaintiffs for September 19 and 20, 2007 is extended to November 5, 2007.

 In all other respects, the discovery schedule remains unchanged.

3. Pretrial and trial dates remain unchanged: Plaintiffs’ request for a new trial date is denied

as unnecessary and unwarranted. The underlying events in this matter occurred in September, 2002,

when Vladimir was an 8-year-old 3d grader. It is now September, 2007, so Vladimir is presumably

about 13.1 The longer trial is delayed, the more difficult it will be to fairly evaluate the underlying

factual situation. No good cause for further delay has been demonstrated. Accordingly, the trial date

remains January 7, 2008, and the pretrial conference remains December 18, 2007 at 3:30 p.m.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 27, 2007 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:03-cv-05031-SI Document 62 Filed 09/27/07 Page 2 of 2