Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-02211/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-02211-7/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jeronimo Aguilar
Plaintiff
City of Sacramento
Defendant
Daniel Hahn
Defendant
Nicollette Jones
Plaintiff
Loren Wayne Kidd
Plaintiff
Lyric Nash
Plaintiff
Sacramento Police Department
Defendant
Megan White
Plaintiff
Odette Zapata
Plaintiff

Document Text:

White v. Sacramento, No. 2:21-cv-02211-JAM-DB

Stipulation and Application For Amendment of The Pretrial Scheduling Order 1

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

TIFANEI N. MOYER, SBN 319721

ZAL SHROFF, MJP 804620

MADELINE FLOOD, SBN 329388

LAWYERS’ COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS 

OF THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA

131 Steuart Street, Suite 400

San Francisco, CA 94105

Telephone: (916) 634-8687

Email: tresslmoyer@lccrsf.org

zshroff@lccrsf.org

CYNTHIA L. RICE, SBN 87630

AVIANCE D. BROWN, Pro Hac Vice

CIVIL RIGHTS EDUCATION AND

ENFORCEMENT CENTER

1245 E Colfax Ave., Suite 400

Denver, CO 80218

Telephone: (303) 757-7901

Email: crice@creeclaw.org abrown@creeclaw.org

DAN SIEGEL, SBN 56400

EMILYROSE JOHNS, SBN 294319

SARA BELADI, SBN 348987

SIEGEL, YEE, BRUNNER & MEHTA

475 14th Street, Suite 500

Oakland, California 94612

Telephone: (510) 839-1200

Facsimile: (510) 444-6698

Email: danmsiegel@gmail.com

emilyrose@siegelyee.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

MEGAN WHITE, et al.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SACRAMENTO DIVISION

MEGAN WHITE, JERONIMO AGUILAR,

LOREN WAYNE KIDD, LYRIC NASH,

NICOLLETTE JONES, and ODETTE ZAPATA,

Plaintiffs, 

v.

SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT; THE

CITY OF SACRAMENTO; DANIEL HAHN;

and DOES 1-200 (the names and numbers of

which are currently unknown),

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 2:21-cv-02211-JAM-DB

STIPULATION AND APPLICATION FOR 

AMENDMENT OF THE PRETRIAL 

SCHEDULING ORDER; ORDER

Case 2:21-cv-02211-JAM-SCR Document 51 Filed 10/24/23 Page 1 of 6
White v. Sacramento, No. 2:21-cv-02211-JAM-DB

Stipulation and Application For Amendment of The Pretrial Scheduling Order 2

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

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1) and Civil Local Rules 144(a), Plaintiffs Megan White, Jeronimo 

Aguilar, Loren Wayne Kidd, Lyric Nash, Nicollette Jones, and Odette Zapata (“Plaintiffs”) and Defendants 

the City of Sacramento, the Sacramento Police Department, and Daniel Hahn (“Defendants”), collectively 

“the parties”, by and through their respective counsel of record, hereby stipulate as follows:

WHEREAS, on August 10, 2022, the Court issued a Pretrial Scheduling Order (Dkt. No. 34); and 

then entered an Amended Pretrial Scheduling Order on June 20, 2023 (Dkt. No. 46).

WHEREAS, the Amended Pretrial Order provides that the date for completion of discovery is

December 1, 2023, the date for disclosure of expert witnesses is December 15, 2023, and the date for 

disclosure of rebuttal witnesses is January 19, 2024; and that, consistent with the original scheduling order 

(Dkt. 34), dispositive motions shall be filed by February 2, 2024, and hearing on such motions shall be on 

April 9, 2024 at 1:30 PM; the Final Pretrial Conference is SET for May 17, 2024 at 10:00 AM and the Jury 

Trial is SET for July 1, 2024 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 6 (JAM) before District Judge John A. Mendez.

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs and Defendants previously stipulated only to extend the discovery cutoff and 

expert disclosure dates, with the expectation that those tasks could be completed without having to change 

the trial or other pre-trial dates. The parties now share the belief that discovery cannot be completed within 

the previously agreed upon timeframe, and further extension of the discovery and expert witness deadlines

will require an extension of the dates currently set for motions, pre-trial conference and trial. 

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs noticed the deposition of the City of Sacramento pursuant to Rule 30(b)(6) on 

December 27, 2022, including various topics of inquiry requiring the preparation and presentation of various 

different individual deponents.

WHEREAS, following several months of meeting and conferring, the parties reached agreement on 

the scope of the examination of the witnesses and the appropriate witnesses for 30(b)(6) deposition topics, 

and Plaintiffs scheduled various depositions for June 2023.

WHEREAS, on June 6, 2023 Plaintiffs’ counsel were notified that new counsel would be appearing 

on behalf of the Defendants, and that as a result majority of the scheduled depositions were cancelled.

WHEREAS, despite good faith efforts to re-schedule the 30(b)(6) depositions, Plaintiffs have only 

Case 2:21-cv-02211-JAM-SCR Document 51 Filed 10/24/23 Page 2 of 6
White v. Sacramento, No. 2:21-cv-02211-JAM-DB

Stipulation and Application For Amendment of The Pretrial Scheduling Order 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

been able to complete depositions of four (4) of the eleven (11) deponents identified as having the requisite 

knowledge to respond to the issues raised in the 30(b)(6) notice of deposition. One deponent was presented 

who was not prepared to testify to the designated topics, and the deposition had to be terminated and reset. 

One deposition that was partially completed was scheduled for completion on September 28, 2023, but was 

cancelled by Defendants’ counsel and has been re-noticed for October 23, 2023. Plaintiffs have received 

confirmed dates for one other deposition, which has been noticed for October 19, 2023. Defendants have not 

provided available dates for the remaining five (5) deponents identified in response to the 30(b)(6) notice. 

WHEREAS, based on initial discovery responses Plaintiffs anticipate that they will need to notice 

ten (10) additional percipient witness depositions, which will include several police officers from the 

Sacramento Police Department. Defendants wish to take the deposition of each of the seven (7) Plaintiffs.

WHEREAS, the parties do not believe that it will be possible to complete all of the remaining 

deposition discovery by December 1, 2023 given current scheduling conflicts of the parties’ counsel, the 

difficulty in obtaining available dates for the witnesses, and the impending holidays.

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs believe that they have diligently pursued discovery in this case, but there have 

also been delays in responses to written discovery. Although Plaintiffs’ claims include detailed custom and 

practice allegations under a Monell theory of liability, the parties have not exchanged even close to the 

volume of written discovery Plaintiffs anticipated and that are necessary for the scope of the claims and 

appropriate and proportional under Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 26. 

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs served a Second Set of Interrogatories (served July 18, 2022) and Second Set 

of Requests for Production of Documents (served on July 21, 2023) but responses to both were considered 

incomplete, or otherwise deficient by Plaintiffs. After multiple meet and confer sessions Defendants have 

agreed to supplement those responses and will do so between October 13 and October 20, 2023. 

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs have continued to request supplemental responses to Plaintiffs’ First Set of 

Interrogatories (served July 18, 2022). On September 23, 2023, Defendants supplemented their responses to 

the First Set of Interrogatories. On October 10, 2023, Plaintiffs renewed their concerns regarding 

deficiencies in Defendants’ responses. Defendants are considering those requests for further 

supplementation from Plaintiffs.

Case 2:21-cv-02211-JAM-SCR Document 51 Filed 10/24/23 Page 3 of 6
White v. Sacramento, No. 2:21-cv-02211-JAM-DB

Stipulation and Application For Amendment of The Pretrial Scheduling Order 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

WHEREAS, on October 3, 2023, Plaintiffs served their Third Request for Production of Documents, 

and responses to those requests are outstanding. Plaintiffs anticipate the need to serve additional

interrogatories and other requests for production, as needed, based on Defendants’ ongoing document 

disclosures. 

WHEREAS, the parties believe that—in part due to the change in Defendants’ counsel—the process 

of negotiating and completing the volume of written discovery in this action, including any necessary 

discovery conferences or motion practice over disputed records, will require several months. 

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs served Defendants with a written settlement demand on August 16, 2023.

WHEREAS, Defendants acknowledged, but have not substantively responded to Plaintiffs’ demand. 

WHEREAS, the parties are still interested in pursuing meaningful settlement discussions and believe 

that extending the discovery deadlines will promote those efforts.

WHEREAS, Defendants wish to delay settlement discussion until after they have had the 

opportunity to depose all Plaintiffs, and which the parties believe will likely take until at least the middle of 

November or early December. 

WHEREAS, at that time the parties will seek a referral to a U.S. Magistrate for the purpose of 

attempting to resolve this matter but anticipate that scheduling a settlement conference in December will 

likely be a challenge, and the parties feel that several sessions may be necessary to resolve the case given 

the complexity of the case. 

WHEREAS, the parties believe that the filing of dispositive motions will distract from settlement 

efforts, but all parties desire to preserve the right to seek pre-trial relief if settlement is not possible.

WHEREAS, the parties now believe that in order to complete discovery, designate expert witnesses, 

engage in meaningful settlement and, if necessary, file and have hearing on dispositive motions, it will be 

necessary to extend all current pretrial dates and the trial date by at least five months.

WHEREAS, this joint request is being made in the interests of judicial economy and in good faith 

and will not prejudice any party.

WHEREAS, the parties have shown good cause for the stipulated extensions pursuant to Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 16(b)(4), in light of the parties’ diligent efforts on discovery to date, in light of recent counsel 

Case 2:21-cv-02211-JAM-SCR Document 51 Filed 10/24/23 Page 4 of 6
White v. Sacramento, No. 2:21-cv-02211-JAM-DB

Stipulation and Application For Amendment of The Pretrial Scheduling Order 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

changes necessitating cancellation of scheduled depositions, and in light of the parties’ desire to participate 

in meaningful settlement discussions over the coming months. 

NOW THEREFORE, Plaintiffs and Defendants hereby stipulate, subject to the approval of this 

Court for good cause shown, that:

1. The deadline for parties’ completion of discovery shall be extended to May 1, 2024.

2. The deadline for parties’ disclosure of expert witnesses shall be extended to May 15, 2024. 

3. The deadline for parties’ disclosure of rebuttal experts shall be extended to June 19, 2024. 

4. The deadline for filing dispositive motions be extended to July 2, 2024. Hearing on such 

motions shall be on September 9, 2024 at 1:30 PM

5. The date for the Final Pretrial Conference be extended and SET for October 17, 2024 at 

10:00 AM and the date for Jury Trial be extended and SET for December 2, 2024 at 09:00 AM in 

Courtroom 6. 

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: October 18, 2023 SIEGEL, YEE, BRUNNER & MEHTA

/s/ Dan Siegel

DAN SIEGEL

Attorneys for Plaintiffs MEGAN WHITE, JERONIMO 

AGUILAR, LOREN WAYNE KIDD, LYRIC NASH,

NICOLLETTE JONES, and ODETTE ZAPATA

Dated: October 18, 2023 SACRAMENTO CITY ATTORNEY

/s/ Sean D. Richmond

SEAN D. RICHMOND

Attorneys for Defendants 

SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT; THE CITY OF 

SACRAMENTO; DANIEL HAHN

Case 2:21-cv-02211-JAM-SCR Document 51 Filed 10/24/23 Page 5 of 6
White v. Sacramento, No. 2:21-cv-02211-JAM-DB

Stipulation and Application For Amendment of The Pretrial Scheduling Order 6

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 MODIFYING PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER

Based on the stipulation of the parties and good cause appearing, the case schedule is MODIFIED as 

follows: 

1. The deadline for parties’ completion of discovery shall be extended to May 01, 2024.

2. The deadline for parties’ disclosure of expert witnesses shall be extended to May 15, 2024. 

3. The deadline for parties’ disclosure of rebuttal experts shall be extended to June 19, 2024. 

4. The deadline for filing dispositive motions be extended to July 02, 2024. Hearing on such 

motions shall be on September 10, 2024, at 1:30 PM.

1

5. Joint Mid-Litigation Statement Filing Deadline: Fourteen (14) days prior to the close of 

discovery.

6. The date for the Final Pretrial Conference is SET for October 29, 2024, at 10:00 AM.

7. The date for Jury Trial is SET for December 02, 2024, at 09:00 AM, in Courtroom 6; 

8. All other instructions contained in the August 10, 2022, Pretrial Scheduling Order (ECF No. 

34), shall remain in effect. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 23, 2023 /s/ John A. Mendez

THE HONORABLE JOHN A. MENDEZ

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1 Calendars are subject to last minute changes. Contact the Courtroom Deputy for available dates.

Case 2:21-cv-02211-JAM-SCR Document 51 Filed 10/24/23 Page 6 of 6