Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01263/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01263-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Stein Buer
Defendant
City of Sacramento
Defendant
Maggie Franklin
Plaintiff
Julie Lienert
Defendant
Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency
Defendant

Document Text:

1

00582648.WPD JOINT STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER

A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

Nancy J. Sheehan, SBN 109419

James S. Yi, SBN 251007

350 University Ave., Suite 200

Sacramento, California 95825

TEL: 916.929.1481 

FAX: 916.927.3706 

Attorneys for Defendants SACRAMENTO AREA FLOOD CONTROL AGENCY, CITY OF

SACRAMENTO, STEIN BUER and JULIE LIENERT 

Lawrence J. Murray, SBN 77536

MURRAY & ASSOCIATES

1781 Union Street

San Francisco, CA 94123

TEL: 415-673-0555

FAX: 415-928-4084

Attorney for Plaintiff MAGGIE FRANKLIN

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MAGGIE FRANKLIN, 

Plaintiff,

v.

SACRAMENTO AREA FLOOD CONTROL

AGENCY, a public entity, CITY OF

SACRAMENTO, a public agency, STEIN

BUER and JULIE LIENERT, 

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 2:07-CV-01263-WBS-GGH

SECOND JOINT STIPULATION AND

[PROPOSED] ORDER TO MODIFY

SCHEDULING ORDER AND EXTEND

DEADLINES FOR EXPERT WITNESS

DISCLOSURES, SUPPLEMENTAL

DISCLOSURES OF REBUTTAL EXPERT

WITNESSES, AND DISCOVERY

COMPLETION

Plaintiff MAGGIE FRANKLIN and Defendants SACRAMENTO AREA FLOOD CONTROL

AGENCY, CITY OF SACRAMENTO, STEIN BUER and JULIE LIENERT, by and through their

respective attorneys of record, hereby agree to the proposed changes set forth below and request the

Court to further modify the Pre-Trial Scheduling Order previously modified on March 20, 2008, as

Case 2:07-cv-01263-WBS-KJN Document 17 Filed 05/22/08 Page 1 of 2
2

00582648.WPD JOINT STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER

follows:

Expert Witness Disclosure June 16, 2008

Supplemental Rebuttal Disclosure of Experts July 15, 2008

Discovery Completion Deadline August 29, 2008

Last Day to Hear Discovery Motions August 29, 2008

Good cause exists to further modify the Scheduling Order because the parties have yet to

complete discovery necessary for the parties’ experts to draft their reports for disclosure pursuant to

F.R.C.P. 26(a)(2). Discovery has been delayed due to the unavailability of witnesses for deposition

and other scheduling conflicts. All parties have agreed to complete the necessary discovery as soon

as reasonably possible, and therefore respectfully request further modification of the Scheduling Order

as identified above.

Dated: May 21, 2008 PORTER SCOTT

A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

By /s/ Nancy J. Sheehan 

Nancy J. Sheehan

James S. Yi

Attorneys for Defendants

Dated: May 21, 2008 MURRAY & ASSOCIATES

By /s/ Lawrence D. Murray (as per attachment) 

Lawrence D. Murray

Attorney for Plaintiff

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 21, 2008

Case 2:07-cv-01263-WBS-KJN Document 17 Filed 05/22/08 Page 2 of 2