Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00827/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00827-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:451 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

1

LAWRENCE J. KING (CSB #120805)

6 “C” STREET 

PETALUMA, CA 94952

PHONE: (707) 769-9791

FAX: (707) 769-9253

ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF

SHARON PATTERSON

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SHARON PATTERSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

GENERAL SERVICES, RAY ASBEL

and INTER-CON SECURITY,

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 2:05-CV-0827-MCE-JFM

JOINT STIPULATION REQUESTING 

AN EXTENSION OF CERTAIN 

PRETRIAL DEADLINES AND 

ORDER

I. INTRODUCTION

That parties hereto, by and through their respective counsel, hereby stipulate to request

an extension of the following pretrial deadlines:

A. Discovery, from 9\30\06, to 10\31\06;

B. Dispositive Motion Hearing, from 10\13\06, to 12\18\06;

C. Expert Designation, from 10\16\06, to 11\30\06.

The parties have further stipulated to request that the Court permit hearing of any issues

related to a mental exam and production of related records to be permitted to be set for hearing

no later than November 17, 2006. 

///

///

///

Case 2:05-cv-00827-MCE -JFM Document 26 Filed 09/28/06 Page 1 of 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

2

II. BASIS FOR THE REQUEST

This is the second request by the parties to extend pretrial deadlines. The reason for this

second request is that when the parties made the first request it was the intention of the parties

to conduct the discovery necessary to prepare this case for trial during June, July, August and

September. Unfortunately, Plaintiff’s counsel was unavailable during a substantial portion of

that time due to family emergencies. Plaintiff’s counsel’s uncle, Father John Schuett, S.J., died

in June and counsel had to travel to Michigan for the funeral and to assist in ordering his uncle’s

affairs. In July, counsel and his family learned that his wife’s brother was dying of cancer.

Months before the two families had planned to meet in Northern Michigan to spend time

together. Shortly before the trip was to occur, counsel’s brother-in-law’s condition had

deteriorated to the point he could not drive his family to the summer home in Michigan, so

counsel flew to Chicago, picked up his brother-in-law and his family and drove them to Northern

Michigan. He subsequently drove his brother-in-law and his family back to Chicago. Two

weeks later, counsel and his family had to return to Chicago for his brother-in-law’s funeral.

After their return to California, counsel himself had to undergo surgery. 

As a result of counsel’s family emergencies, during a substantial portion of the time the

parties intended to complete discovery, no discovery could be done. Once Plaintiff’s counsel

returned to town and recovered from hissurgery, all counsel cooperated in an attempt to schedule

the depositions necessary to prepare this case for trial. Unfortunately, the necessary depositions

could not be scheduled prior to the current discovery deadline due to conflicts between the four

attorney’s schedule and the schedule of the deponents. To insure that the necessary depositions

will be taken before the close of the proposed extension of the discovery deadline, counsel have

conferred and set aside ten days in September and October for said depositions. Counsel have

already begun scheduling for October the various depositions that need to be taken to complete

trial preparation.

The parties request that the dispositive motion hearing deadline be extended to enable

them to complete discovery prior to having to file a motion for summary judgement. 

///

Case 2:05-cv-00827-MCE -JFM Document 26 Filed 09/28/06 Page 2 of 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

3

Likewise, the parties have requested an extension of the deadline to designate experts so

that Plaintiff’s deposition may be completed before the parties have to decide which experts, if

any, to designate. 

Moreover, various other unanticipated circumstances have resulted in a need for all

parties, in order to preserve expenses and the time of the court in potentially unnecessary motion

hearings, to agree that certain potential discovery issues relating to depositions of medical

providers and a possible mental exam of plaintiff, be temporarily delayed to allow the parties to

attempt to resolve the issues cooperatively amongst themselves. As a result, the parties have

agreed that should these issues not be resolved cooperatively, any disputes regarding an

entitlement to or the scope of any mental examination, including, but not limited to, the

production of relevant records from various medical providers, may be noticed for hearing no

later than November 17, 2006 in order to permit resolution of them prior to the deadline for

designating experts. Depositions oftreating medical providers may be taken in the same manner

as depositions of experts. 

The parties hereby represent to the Court that this request is not made to delay the

resolution of this case. Opposing counsel have cooperated in the attempt to complete discovery

in an expeditious manner. Moreover, if these extensions are granted, the parties represent that

no further extensions should be necessary and that the parties will be prepared to go to trial on

the original date set by this Court for trial, i.e. March 7, 2006.

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the parties respectfully request an extension of the

following pretrial deadlines:

A. Discovery, from 9\30\06, to 10\31\06;

B. Dispositive Motion Hearing, from 10\13\06, to 12\18\06;

C. Expert Designation, from 10\16\06, to 11\30\06. 

The parties further request that the Court permit hearing of any issues related to a mental

exam and production of related records be permitted to be set for hearing no later than November

17, 2006. 

Case 2:05-cv-00827-MCE -JFM Document 26 Filed 09/28/06 Page 3 of 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

4

Dated: September 19, 2006 LAW OFFICES OF LAWRENCE J. KING 

By: s/Lawrence J. King 

 Lawrence J. King

ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF

Dated: September 19, 2006 BILL LOCKYER

Attorney General of the State of California

By: s/William T. Darden 

 William T. Darden

Deputy Attorney General

ATTORNEYs FOR DEFENDANT

DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES

Dated: September 19, 2006 KAUFF McCLAIM & McGUIRE LLP

By: s/Jeffrey D. Polsky 

Jeffrey D. Polsky

ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT INTERCON SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC.

Dated: September 19, 2006 CLANCEY, DOYLE & O’DONNELL 

By: s/Daniel G. O’Donnell 

 Daniel G. O’Donnell

ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT RAYMOND

ASBELL

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 2:05-cv-00827-MCE -JFM Document 26 Filed 09/28/06 Page 4 of 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

5

ORDER

Having consider the parties’s request and finding good cause therefor, the following pretrial

deadlines shall be extended as follows:

Discovery, from 9\30\06, to 10\31\06;

Expert Designation, from 10\16\06, to 11\30\06;

Dispositive Motion Hearing, from 11\13\06, to 12\18\06 at 09:00 a.m.

Any issues related to a mental exam of plaintiff and production of related records will be

set for hearing no later than November 17, 2006. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 27, 2006

___________________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-00827-MCE -JFM Document 26 Filed 09/28/06 Page 5 of 5