Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-03723/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-03723-20/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination

---

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

1120.02P235 -1-

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER (C05-2800/C03-3723 TEH)

PAMELA Y. PRICE, ESQ. (STATE BAR NO. 107713)

OK-HEE SHIM, ESQ. (STATE BAR NO. 240998)

PRICE AND ASSOCIATES

The Latham Square Building

1611 Telegraph Ave., Suite 1450

Oakland, CA 94612

Telephone: (510) 452-0292

Facsimile: (510) 452-5625

HOWARD MOORE, JR., ESQ. (STATE BAR NO. 55228)

MOORE & MOORE

445 Bellevue, Suite 202

Oakland, CA 94610

Telephone: (510) 451-0104

Attorneys for Plaintiff

CLARK WALKER

SILVANO B. MARCHESI (SBN 42965)

County Counsel

BERNARD L. KNAPP (SBN 111720)

Deputy County Counsel

COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA

651 Pine Street, 9th Floor

Martinez, California 94553

Telephone: (925) 335-1800

Facsimile: (925) 335-1866

Email: bknap@cc.cccounty.us

Attorneys for Defendants

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, ET AL.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CLARK WALKER, 

Plaintiff,

v.

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, KEITH

RICHTER, and RICHARD GRACE,

Defendants.

 

AND RELATED CASE.

_____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

NOS. C05-2800 TEH 

C03-3723 TEH 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]

ORDER TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL

JURY INSTRUCTIONS 

Case 3:03-cv-03723-TEH Document 221 Filed 11/21/06 Page 1 of 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

1120.02P235 -2-

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER (C05-2800/C03-3723 TEH)

1. Plaintiff CLARK WALKER (“Chief Walker”) and Defendants CONTRA

COSTA COUNTY, KEITH RICHTER, and RICHARD GRACE, by and through their respective

counsel, jointly apply for an Order, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6-2, to permit Plaintiff to file two

(2) supplemental jury instructions.

2. Good cause exists to permit Plaintiff to file two additional jury instructions. 

One instruction stems from the October 31, 2006 deposition testimony by Defendants’ retained

expert, Dr. Mark Nathan, pertaining to Plaintiff’s damages. The second instruction pertains to the

meaning of the Croskrey Consent Decree, subject to the Court’s ruling of Defendants’ Motion In

Limine to Exclude Evidence of Consent Decree and Statement Relating to Consent Decree and

Defendants’ Motion In Limine to Preclude Opinion Testimony to Meaning of Consent Decree filed

October 24, 2006. Both of these events post-date the October 18, 2006 filing deadline for jury

instructions.

3. Therefore, the parties respectfully request that Plaintiff be permitted to

submit two (2) additional jury instructions, and Defendants be permitted to file objections within

seven (7) calendar days of the date of Plaintiff’s submission.

DATED: November 14, 2006 PRICE AND ASSOCIATES

 /s/

 

OK-HEE SHIM, Attorneys for 

Plaintiff CLARK WALKER

DATED: November 14, 2006 SILVANO B. MARCHESI, County Counsel

 /s/

 

BERNARD L. KNAPP, Deputy County Counsel,

Attorneys for Defendants CONTRA COSTA

COUNTY, KEITH RICHTER, and RICHARD

GRACE

///

///

Case 3:03-cv-03723-TEH Document 221 Filed 11/21/06 Page 2 of 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

1120.02P235 -3-

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER (C05-2800/C03-3723 TEH)

ORDER

Pursuant to the foregoing Stipulation and good cause appearing therefor, IT IS

HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff is to submit two (2) additional jury instructions, and

Defendants are to file objections within seven (7) calendar days of the date of Plaintiff’s

submission.

Date: _____________ 

HON. THELTON E. HENDERSON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

Judge Thelton E. Henderson

11/20/06

Case 3:03-cv-03723-TEH Document 221 Filed 11/21/06 Page 3 of 3