Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00770/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00770-6/pdf.json

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

---

1 

STIPULATION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING 

ORDER AND ORDER 

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

VINCENT W. DAVIS (State Bar Number: 125399) 

ERI DIAZ AGUILAR (State Bar Number: 349578) 

LAW OFFICES OF VINCENT W. DAVIS & ASSOCIATES 

440 E. Huntington Drive Avenue, Suite 100 

Arcadia, California 91006 

Telephone: (626) 446-6442 

v.davis@vincentwdavis.com

eri@vincentwdavis.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

VICTOR RODRIGUEZ 

DANA A. SUNTAG (State Bar Number: 125127) 

JOSHUA J. STEVENS (State Bar Number: 238105) 

HERUM\CRABTREE\SUNTAG, LLP 

5757 Pacific Avenue, Suite 222 

Stockton, California 95207 

Telephone: (209) 472-7700 

dsuntag@herumcrabtree.com

jstevens@herumcrabtree.com 

Attorneys for Defendant 

STEPHANIE EVANS 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

VICTOR RODRIGUEZ, an individual, 

 Plaintiffs, 

 vs. 

COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN by and through 

the SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY HUMAN 

SERVICES AGENCY; STEPHANIE EVANS, 

an individual; LYNN K. SAGAMATSUMOTO, an individual, 

and DOES 1 through 9, 

 

 Defendants. 

Case No. 2:16-cv-00770-TLN-JDP 

STIPULATION TO MODIFY 

PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER; 

ORDER 

[No hearing requested]

Case 2:16-cv-00770-TLN-JDP Document 59 Filed 08/16/24 Page 1 of 5
2 

STIPULATION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING 

ORDER AND ORDER 

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

All parties, through their counsel of record, respectfully stipulate as follows: 

RECITALS 

A. On April 14, 2016, Plaintiff filed this lawsuit, alleging eight claims against 

three Defendants. Plaintiff is suing under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 regarding the 

termination of his alleged parental rights to the minor child “A.R.” through a dependency 

proceeding in the San Joaquin County Dependency Court. 

B. Defendants filed three motions to dismiss portions of Plaintiff’s operative 

complaint and amended complaints (ECF Nos. 13, 28, and 38), the last of which the 

Court ruled on by order issued on July 13, 2023. (ECF No. 46.) On August 3, 2023, the 

remaining Defendant, Stephanie Evans, filed her Answer to Plaintiff’s two remaining 

claims. (ECF No. 47.) 

C. On October 12, 2023, the Court issued its initial Pretrial Scheduling Order. 

(ECF No. 48.) 

D. On February 12, 2024, counsel filed a stipulation to modify the Scheduling 

Order. (ECF No. 55.) On February 13, 2024, the Court issued an order approving the 

stipulation. (ECF No. 56.) 

E. The parties have diligently been engaged in discovery. As explained in the 

previous stipulation to modify the scheduling order (ECF No. 55), the records from the 

underlying state dependency case are protected from disclosure—even to defense 

counsel—under Welfare and Institutions Code Section 827. The dependency records 

are crucial to both parties’ preparation for trial. To try to obtain those records, on 

December 29, 2023, Defendant’s counsel filed a petition with the San Joaquin County 

Dependency Court pursuant to Section 827. The Dependency Court set a hearing on 

the petition for February 20, 2024, but it continued the hearing sua sponte and it has 

since continued the hearing several additional times sua sponte. Most recently, the 

hearing was set for August 12, 2024, but the Dependency Court again sua sponte

continued the hearing, to September 20, 2024. If the Dependency Court actually holds 

Case 2:16-cv-00770-TLN-JDP Document 59 Filed 08/16/24 Page 2 of 5
3 

STIPULATION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING 

ORDER AND ORDER 

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

the hearing on September 20, 2024, and orders documents produced at that hearing, it 

is unknown when the documents will actually be produced; in counsel’s experience, that 

process sometimes takes weeks or months. 

F. Even if the documents are produced shortly after the scheduled hearing, 

the current discovery cutoff of September 30, 2024, does not give the parties adequate 

time to review the documents and utilize them in discovery or for motions. Among other 

things, Defendant Stephanie Evans’ counsel needs the documents to prepare 

Ms. Evans for her deposition. Additionally, the documents may contain information that 

would indicate the need for a further deposition of Plaintiff or others. 

G. Accordingly, the parties wish to extend the discovery cut off and all 

subsequent deadlines to allow them to complete their necessary discovery. The parties 

respectfully request a continuance of the dates in the Scheduling Order, as specified 

below, for this purpose. There has been only one prior continuance of the dates in the 

Scheduling Order. (ECF No. 56.) 

H. When an act must be done within a specified time, the Court may, for 

good cause, extend the time with or without motion if the court acts, or a request is 

made, before the original time expires. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A). With respect to an 

order setting forth the Court’s pretrial schedule, “[t]he district court may modify the 

pretrial schedule ‘if it cannot be reasonably met despite the diligence of the party 

seeking the amendment.’” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 

(9th Cir. 1992). 

Case 2:16-cv-00770-TLN-JDP Document 59 Filed 08/16/24 Page 3 of 5
4 

STIPULATION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING 

ORDER AND ORDER 

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

STIPULATION 

The parties, by and through their undersigned counsel, respectfully request the 

Court modify the Scheduling Order as follows: 

Matter Current Date Proposed Date 

Cutoff of Discovery 9/30/24 1/31/25 

Expert Disclosure Date 12/6/24 4/30/25 

Rebuttal Expert Disclosure Date 1/10/25 5/30/25 

Joint Notice of Trial Readiness (if no 

dispositive motions will be filed)

2/28/25 7/4/25 

Last Day to Submit All Supplemental 

Disclosures and Discovery Responses 

3/28/25 8/29/25 

Dispositive Motion Cutoff Date 5/2/25 10/31/25 

Respectfully Submitted, 

Dated: August 14, 2024 HERUM CRABTREE SUNTAG, LLP 

 By: /s/ Joshua J. Stevens 

 JOSHUA J. STEVENS 

 Attorneys for Defendant 

 STEPHANIE EVANS 

Dated: August 15, 2024 LAW OFFICES OF VINCENT W. DAVIS 

& ASSOCIATES 

 By: /s/ Eri Diaz Aguilar____________

 VINCENT W. DAVIS 

ERI DIAZ AGUILAR

 Attorneys for Plaintiff 

 VICTOR RODRIGUEZ 

SIGNATURE ATTESTATION 

Pursuant to Eastern District of California Local Rule 131(e), I attest that I 

obtained authorization to place Plaintiff’s counsel’s e-signature on this document and to 

file this document with the Court. 

 By: /s/ - Joshua J. Stevens_ 

 Joshua J. Stevens 

Case 2:16-cv-00770-TLN-JDP Document 59 Filed 08/16/24 Page 4 of 5
5 

STIPULATION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING 

ORDER AND ORDER 

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 

 The Court, having considered the parties’ stipulation, and good cause appearing, 

rules as follows: 

The relief the parties request is GRANTED, and the Scheduling Order is modified 

as follows: 

Matter Current Date New Date 

Cutoff of Discovery 9/30/24 1/31/25 

Expert Disclosure Date 12/6/24 4/30/25 

Rebuttal Expert Disclosure Date 1/10/25 5/30/25 

Joint Notice of Trial Readiness (if no 

dispositive motions will be filed)

2/28/25 7/7/25 

Last Day to Submit All Supplemental 

Disclosures and Discovery Responses 

3/28/25 8/29/25 

Dispositive Motion Cutoff Date 5/2/25 10/31/25 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August 15, 2024 

Troy L. Nunley

United States District Judge

Case 2:16-cv-00770-TLN-JDP Document 59 Filed 08/16/24 Page 5 of 5