Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-02211/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-02211-10/pdf.json

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

---

White v. Sacramento, No. 2:21-cv-02211-JAM-DB

Stipulation and Request for Reconsideration of Scheduling Order 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

NISHA KASHYAP, SBN 301934

ANDREW NTIM, SBN 347084

LAWYERS’ COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS 

OF THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA

131 Steuart Street, Suite 400

San Francisco, CA 94105

Telephone: (916) 634-8687

Email: nkashyap@lccrsf.org;

antim@lccrsf.org

CYNTHIA L. RICE, SBN 87630

AVIANCE D. BROWN, Pro Hac Vice

CIVIL RIGHTS EDUCATION AND

ENFORCEMENT CENTER

1245 E Colfax Ave., Suite 400

Denver, CO 80218

Telephone: (303) 757-7901

Email: crice@creeclaw.org

abrown@creeclaw.org

DAN SIEGEL, SBN 56400

EMILYROSE JOHNS, SBN 294319

SIEGEL, YEE, BRUNNER & MEHTA

475 14th Street, Suite 500

Oakland, California 94612

Telephone: (510) 839-1200

Facsimile: (510) 444-6698

Email: danmsiegel@gmail.com

emilyrose@siegelyee.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

MEGAN WHITE, et al.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SACRAMENTO DIVISION

MEGAN WHITE, JERONIMO AGUILAR,

LOREN WAYNE KIDD, LYRIC NASH,

NICOLLETTE JONES, and ODETTE ZAPATA,

Plaintiffs, 

v.

SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT; THE

CITY OF SACRAMENTO; DANIEL HAHN;

and DOES 1-200 (the names and numbers of

which are currently unknown),

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 2:21-cv-02211-JAM-DB

STIPULATION AND REQUEST FOR 

RECONSIDERATION OF EXPERT 

DEADLINES IN AMENDED SCHEDULING 

ORDER

Case 2:21-cv-02211-JAM-SCR Document 68 Filed 04/30/24 Page 1 of 5
White v. Sacramento, No. 2:21-cv-02211-JAM-DB

Stipulation and Request for Reconsideration of Scheduling Order 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

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1) and Civil Local Rules 144(a), Plaintiffs Megan White, Jeronimo 

Aguilar, Loren Wayne Kidd, Lyric Nash, Nicollette Jones, and Odette Zapata (“Plaintiffs”) and Defendants 

the City of Sacramento, the Sacramento Police Department, and Daniel Hahn (“Defendants”), collectively 

“the parties”, by and through their respective counsel of record, hereby stipulate as follows:

WHEREAS, on August 10, 2022, the Court issued a Pretrial Scheduling Order (Dkt. No. 34), and

then amended the pretrial scheduling order on June 20, 2023 (Dkt. No. 46) and on October 23, 2023 (Dkt. 

No. 51).

WHEREAS, on April 17, 2024, the parties jointly stipulated to a proposed extension of all deadlines 

by approximately six weeks, subject to approval by the Court (Dkt No. 63).

WHEREAS, the parties sought this extension in order to complete discovery, designate expert 

witnesses, engage in meaningful settlement discussions and, if necessary, file and have a hearing on 

dispositive motions.

WHEREAS, on April 22, 2024, the Court issued an Amended Pretrial Scheduling Order (Dkt. No. 

64) that set the following deadlines: discovery cut-off date on August 2, 2024, disclosure of expert(s) 

deadline on June 7, 2024, supplemental disclosure deadline on June 21, 2024, dispositive motion filing 

deadline on September 27, 2024, dispositive motion hearing on December 3, 2024 at 1:00 PM, joint midlitigation statement filing deadline due fourteen (14) days prior to the close of discovery; joint pretrial 

statement filing deadline on January 16, 2025, final pretrial conference on January 24, 2025 at 10:00 AM, 

jury trial on March 10, 2025 at 9:00 AM. 

WHEREAS, the Amended Pretrial Scheduling Order (Dkt. No. 64) sets the disclosure of expert(s) 

deadline two months before the discovery cut-off deadline and sets the supplemental disclosure deadline six 

weeks before the discovery cut-off deadline. 

WHEREAS, the parties agree that it is in the best interest of the full development of the case to 

ensure that expert witnesses have access to all information produced during discovery prior to preparing the 

expert reports required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B), and that this may not be possible under the current 

Amended Pretrial Scheduling Order timeline.

Case 2:21-cv-02211-JAM-SCR Document 68 Filed 04/30/24 Page 2 of 5
White v. Sacramento, No. 2:21-cv-02211-JAM-DB

Stipulation and Request for Reconsideration of Scheduling Order 3

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

WHEREAS, this joint request is being made in the interests of judicial economy and in good faith 

and will not prejudice any party.

WHEREAS, the parties have shown good cause for the stipulated extensions pursuant to Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 16(b)(4), in light of the parties’ diligent efforts on discovery to date and the parties’ desire to 

participate in meaningful settlement discussions. 

NOW THEREFORE, Plaintiffs and Defendants hereby stipulate, subject to the approval of this 

Court for good cause shown, that:

1. The deadline for parties’ disclosure of expert witnesses shall be extended to August 7, 2024. 

2. The deadline for parties’ disclosure of rebuttal experts shall be extended to August 21, 2024. 

All other deadlines in the Court’s Amended Pretrial Scheduling Order (Dkt. No. 64) shall remain in effect. 

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: April 29, 2024 SIEGEL, YEE, BRUNNER & MEHTA

/s/ Dan Siegel

DAN SIEGEL

Attorneys for Plaintiffs MEGAN WHITE, JERONIMO 

AGUILAR, LOREN WAYNE KIDD, LYRIC NASH,

NICOLLETTE JONES, and ODETTE ZAPATA

Dated: April 29, 2024 SACRAMENTO CITY ATTORNEY

/s/ Sean D. Richmond

SEAN D. RICHMOND

Attorneys for Defendants 

SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT; THE CITY OF 

SACRAMENTO; DANIEL HAHN

Case 2:21-cv-02211-JAM-SCR Document 68 Filed 04/30/24 Page 3 of 5
White v. Sacramento, No. 2:21-cv-02211-JAM-DB

Stipulation and Request for Reconsideration of Scheduling Order 4

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

ATTESTATION

I, Kayla Webster, attest that all other signatures listed, and on whose behalf the filing is submitted, 

concur in the filing’s contents and have authorized the filing.

/s/ Kayla Webster

 Kayla Webster

Case 2:21-cv-02211-JAM-SCR Document 68 Filed 04/30/24 Page 4 of 5
White v. Sacramento, No. 2:21-cv-02211-JAM-DB

Stipulation and Request for Reconsideration of Scheduling Order 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

ORDER

Based on the foregoing, and GOOD CAUSE showing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. The deadline for parties’ disclosure of expert witnesses shall be extended to August 7, 2024. 

2. The deadline for parties’ disclosure of rebuttal experts shall be extended to August 21, 2024.

3. All other deadlines set forth in the Court’s Order Modifying the Pretrial Scheduling Order 

(ECF No. 64) shall remain in effect.

4. All other instructions contained in the August 10, 2022 Pretrial Scheduling Order (ECF No. 

34) shall remain in effect.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 29, 2024 /s/ John A. Mendez

THE HONORABLE JOHN A. MENDEZ

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:21-cv-02211-JAM-SCR Document 68 Filed 04/30/24 Page 5 of 5