Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-01119/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-01119-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans with Disabilities Act

---

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 RE: EXPEDITED DISCOVERY –

CASE NO. 2:10-CV-1119

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

LESLIE NAPPER, JANET FISCHER, JACQUIE 

EICHHORN-SMITH, TED YANELLO, and 

LYNDA MANGIO, on behalf of themselves and 

all others similarly situated, 

 Plaintiffs, 

 v. 

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO; BOARD OF 

SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF 

SACRAMENTO; County Supervisor ROGER 

DICKINSON; County Supervisor JIMMIE YEE; 

County Supervisor SUSAN PETERS; County 

Supervisor ROBERTA MACGLASHAN; County 

Supervisor DON NOTTOLI; SACRAMENTO 

COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF BEHAVIORAL 

HEALTH SERVICES; ANN EDWARDSBUCKLEY, Director, Department of Behavioral 

Health Services; MARY ANN BENNETT, Mental 

Health Director, 

 Defendants. 

Case No. 2:10-cv-1119 

ORDER RE: EXPEDITED 

DISCOVERY 

Date: June 30, 2010 

Time: 10:00 AM 

Place: Courtroom 24 

Judge: Hon. Edmund F. Brennan 

Case 2:10-cv-01119-JAM-EFB Document 80 Filed 07/01/10 Page 1 of 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 

 1. ORDER RE: EXPEDITED DISCOVERY –

CASE NO. 2:10-CV-1119

 Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Application for an Order Permitting Expedited Discovery and 

Depositions, Dckt. No. 73, came on for hearing before the undersigned at 10:00 a.m. on June 30, 

2010. William S. Freeman, Esq. appeared on behalf of Plaintiffs, and Rick Heyer, Esq. and June 

Powells-Mays, Esq. appeared on behalf of Defendants. 

After considering the papers submitted by the parties in connection with the Application 

and other papers in the Court’s file, and hearing arguments of counsel, and good cause appearing, 

the Court hereby ORDERS as follows: 

1 Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Application for an Order Permitting Expedited Discovery and 

Depositions, Dckt. No. 73, is granted in part and denied in part. 

2 Plaintiffs shall be entitled to conduct two (2) depositions during the time period 

requested in the motion (July 2-12, 2010), specifically the depositions of Defendants Ann 

Edwards-Buckley and Mary Ann Bennett. Plaintiffs may not take a third deposition as requested, 

but this portion of the Court’s Order is without prejudice and Plaintiffs may apply to the Court for 

leave to take a third deposition during this period if the deponent is specifically identified and 

plaintiffs demonstrate that such a deposition is necessary. The parties shall confer to work out 

the details regarding the dates, times and locations of the two depositions ordered. 

3 The time spent in taking the deposition of each witness shall count against the 7-

hour time limit for each witness’s deposition set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(d)(1). If a witness’s 

deposition does not consume 7 hours, Plaintiffs will be entitled to complete the deposition of that 

witness at a subsequent time, using the unexpired portion of the 7 hours. If Plaintiffs desire to 

examine a witness for more than a total of 7 hours, Plaintiffs shall seek leave of the Court to do 

so. 

4 Defendants’ request for leave “to submit deposition testimony in opposition to 

Plaintiffs’ Reply [in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction],” Dckt. No. 75 at 

10, is denied without prejudice since the Motion for a Preliminary Injunction is not noticed for 

hearing before the undersigned, and therefore the undersigned does not have the authority to grant 

such a request. If Defendants seek leave to file such a sur-reply, they shall direct the request to 

/// 

Case 2:10-cv-01119-JAM-EFB Document 80 Filed 07/01/10 Page 2 of 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 

 2. ORDER RE: EXPEDITED DISCOVERY –

CASE NO. 2:10-CV-1119

 the assigned district judge (before whom the Motion for a Preliminary Injunction is noticed to be 

heard). 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: July 1, 2010

 

Hon. Edmund F. Brennan 

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 2:10-cv-01119-JAM-EFB Document 80 Filed 07/01/10 Page 3 of 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 

 3. ORDER RE: EXPEDITED DISCOVERY –

CASE NO. 2:10-CV-1119

SUBMITTED BY: 

Dated: June 30, 2010 WILLIAM S. FREEMAN (SBN 82002) 

MARGARET I. BRANICK-ABILLA (SBN 223600) 

AMY E. NASH (SBN 264955) 

COOLEY LLP 

3175 Hanover Street 

Palo Alto, CA 94304-1130 

Telephone: (650) 843-5000 

By: /s/ William S. Freeman 

 William S. Freeman 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

APPROVED AS TO FORM: 

Dated: June 30, 2010 ROBERT A. RYAN, JR 

MICHELE BACH (SBN 88948) 

RICK HEYER (SBN 216150) 

JUNE POWELLS-MAYS (SBN 188423) 

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 

700 H Street, Suite 2650 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

Telephone: (916) 874-5540 

By: /s/ Rick Heyer 

 Rick Heyer 

Attorneys for Defendants

865460 v1/HN 

Case 2:10-cv-01119-JAM-EFB Document 80 Filed 07/01/10 Page 4 of 4