Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00051/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00051-12/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
County of Contra Costa
Defendant
Lori Koch
Defendant
Gus S. Kramer
Defendant
Bernice Peoples
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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 

 STIP. AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: DEFENDANTS’ 

REBUTTAL EXPERT DISCLOSURES 

CASE NO. C-07-00051-MHP

PAMELA Y. PRICE (S.B. # 107713) – pypesq@aol.com

PRICE AND ASSOCIATES 

1611 Telegraph Avenue, Ste. 1450 

Oakland, CA 94612 

Telephone: (510) 452-0292 

Facsimile: (510) 452-5625 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

BERNICE PEOPLES 

RANDALL W. EDWARDS (S.B. #179053) redwards@omm.com 

ROBIN M. WALL (S.B. #235690) rwall@omm.com 

DAMALI A. TAYLOR (admitted pro hac vice)

O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP 

Embarcadero Center West 

275 Battery Street 

San Francisco, CA 94111-3305 

Telephone: (415) 984-8700 

Facsimile: (415) 984-8701 

CHRISTOPHER D. CATALANO (S.B. #208606) ccatalano@omm.com

O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP 

1625 Eye Street, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20006-4001 

Telephone: (202) 383-5300 

Facsimile: (202) 383-5414 

Attorneys for Defendants 

COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, GUS S. KRAMER 

and LORI KOCH 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

BERNICE PEOPLES, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, GUS S. 

KRAMER in his individual capacity, LORI 

KOCH in her individual capacity, and 

DOES 1 through 15, inclusive, 

Defendants. 

Case No. C-07-0051 MHP 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER REGARDING REBUTTAL 

EXPERT DISCLOSURES 

Case 3:07-cv-00051-MHP Document 103 Filed 04/29/08 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 

 -1- 

STIP. AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: DEFENDANTS’ 

REBUTTAL EXPERT DISCLOSURES 

CASE NO. C-07-00051-MHP

The parties, having met and conferred by and through their respective counsel, stipulate 

that Defendants may have a one-week extension, from April 29, 2008 to May 6, 2008, to make 

any rebuttal expert disclosures. Good cause for the order exists for the following reasons. 

1. On April 8, 2008, the parties exchanged opening expert witness disclosures. 

Plaintiff served three reports—on issues relating to psychology, interview practices, and alleged 

economic damages. At the same time as the parties were preparing their own and reviewing the 

other side’s reports, they also were preparing their summary judgment papers. Defendants filed 

three summary judgment motions on March 24, 2008. Under the stipulated schedule, Plaintiff’s 

opposition papers were due April 14, 2008, and Defendants’ reply papers were due April 21, 

2008. In light of the need to complete their summary judgment replies at the same time that they 

were identifying any rebuttal experts, Defendants requested and Plaintiff agreed to a one-week 

continuance of the rebuttal expert disclosure deadline from April 29, 2008 to May 6, 2008. The 

parties agreed to leave intact the May 23, 2008 deadline for completing expert discovery. 

2. Prior schedule modifications. Based on the parties’ stipulated request, the 

original expert witness disclosure date was extended from February 15, 2008 to February 25, 

2008, the rebuttal expert witness disclosure was extended from March 8, 2008 to March 17, 2008, 

and the close of expert discovery, which had not previously been set, was set for April 15, 2008. 

On February 22, 2008, the parties jointly requested an enlargement of the expert witness 

discovery deadlines in order to accommodate Defendants’ scheduling of a mental examination of 

the Plaintiff. The Court approved that Stipulation on February 26, 2008. The parties thereafter 

requested a further one-week extension of the expert discovery schedule, which the Court granted 

on April 7, 2008. Separate from expert discovery, the parties also have previously requested and 

received the January 11, 2008 scheduling order, as well as orders relating to the depositions of 

Randy Becker and Paul Choroski. 

 IT IS SO STIPULATED. 

Case 3:07-cv-00051-MHP Document 103 Filed 04/29/08 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 

 -2- 

STIP. AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: DEFENDANTS’ 

REBUTTAL EXPERT DISCLOSURES 

CASE NO. C-07-00051-MHP

Dated: April 24, 2008 PRICE AND ASSOCIATES 

By: ___/s/ Pamela Y. Price______

 Pamela Y. Price 

 

Attorneys for Plaintiff BERNICE PEOPLES 

Dated: April 24, 2008 O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP 

By: __/s/ Christopher D. Catalano________

 Christopher D. Catalano 

 

Attorneys for Defendants 

COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, GUS S. 

KRAMER and LORI KOCH 

I attest under penalty of perjury that concurrence in the filing of this document has been 

obtained from Pamela Y. Price. 

Dated: April 24, 2008 O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP 

By: __/s/ Christopher D. Catalano_____

 Christopher D. Catalano 

 

Attorneys for Defendants 

COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, GUS S. 

KRAMER and LORI KOCH 

[PROPOSED] ORDER

Pursuant to the foregoing stipulation of the parties, and good cause appearing therefor, IT 

IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties’ rebuttal expert disclosures, if any, shall be made no 

later than May 6, 2008. 

Dated: ___________________ 

 _________________________________ 

 HON. MARILYN HALL PATEL 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

DC1:743795.1 

4/29/2008

Case 3:07-cv-00051-MHP Document 103 Filed 04/29/08 Page 3 of 3