Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-01702/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-01702-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Alex Barbour
Plaintiff
Adam Christianson
Defendant
County of Stanislaus
Defendant
Christopher Hendee
Defendant

Document Text:

STIP. & ORDER TO AMEND SCHEDULING ORDER (ECF NO. 9)

Case No. 1:18-cv-01702-DAD-EPG 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

Sanjay S. Schmidt (SBN 247475)

LAW OFFICE OF SANJAY S. SCHMIDT

1388 Sutter Street, Suite 810

San Francisco, CA 94109

T: (415) 563-8583

F: (415) 223-9717

e-mail: ss@sanjayschmidtlaw.com

Tai C. Bogan (SBN 241784)

THE BOGAN LAW FIRM, PC

615 13th Street, Suite A

Modesto, CA 95354

T: (209) 566-9591

F: (209) 566-9668

tai.bogan@theboganlawfirm.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiff,

ALEX BARBOUR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ALEX BARBOUR, 

Plaintiff,

vs.

COUNTY OF STANISLAUS, a public entity;

STANISLAUS COUNTY SHERIFF-CORONER 

ADAM CHRISTIANSON, individually;

COUNTY OF STANISLAUS Sheriff’s Deputy

CHRISTOPHER HENDEE, individually; and

DOES 1–40, Jointly and Severally,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

 Case No. 1:18-cv-01702-DAD-EPG

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO 

MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER 

(ECF Nos. 9, 15)

The parties, by and through their counsel of record, stipulate and hereby respectfully

move this court to modify its March 28, 2019, Scheduling Order (ECF No. 9) to extend 

discovery and pretrial deadlines in this action as set forth in the following chart. This stipulation 

Case 1:18-cv-01702-DAD-EPG Document 16 Filed 01/24/20 Page 1 of 5
STIP. & ORDER TO AMEND SCHEDULING ORDER (ECF NO. 9)

Case No. 1:18-cv-01702-DAD-EPG 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

will not modify or otherwise impact the pretrial conference or trial date. The parties propose the 

following amended dates and deadlines (or as soon thereafter that the Court is available):

The Pretrial Conference and Jury Trial dates of October 13, 2020 and December 8, 2020, 

respectively, would remain as set.

Good cause exists to grant the requested extension for the following reasons, among 

others, which counsel can elaborate on further, if necessary: 

1. This is a civil rights case arising from the shooting of Plaintiff Alex Barbour and searches 

to which the Plaintiff was subjected, by Defendant Christopher Hendee, which occurred

on November 5, 2017. There are disputed factual and legal issues, which will require 

depositions of the parties, some percipient witnesses, and potentially. The parties are 

attempting to the extent possible to phase the discovery, to allow for meaningful 

settlement discussions to occur when the case is ripe for such discussions, but before the 

substantial expenditures of costs and time that will be made before trial have occurred. 

There is key discovery that must be completed before the parties can meaningfully 

participate in ADR, and then there is additional discovery that will be required for trial 

preparation.

2. The parties so far have exchanged one round of written discovery. Plaintiff’s counsel is

presently unable to view some of the recorded interviews of Defendant Hendee and 

others, but is working with defense counsel to identify what software is needed, and is 

Event Current date Proposed Date or Deadline

Nonexpert Discovery Cut-off February 7, 2020 April 17, 2020

Expert Disclosure Deadline March 6, 2020 May 15, 2020 

Rebuttal Expert Disclosure 

Deadline

April 3, 2020 June 12, 2020

Expert Discovery Cut-off May 1, 2020 July 10, 2020

Dispositive Motions filing 

deadline

June 15, 2020 July 27, 2020

Case 1:18-cv-01702-DAD-EPG Document 16 Filed 01/24/20 Page 2 of 5
STIP. & ORDER TO AMEND SCHEDULING ORDER (ECF NO. 9)

Case No. 1:18-cv-01702-DAD-EPG 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

attempting to obtain this software, so that the videos can hopefully be viewed. The 

Plaintiff has produced all of his incident-related medical records and billing. The Plaintiff 

was deposed, on January 10, 2020.

3. There are witnesses that were involved in the events that preceded the shooting of 

Plaintiff, which the undersigned counsel planned to depose, but depositions of these 

witnesses have not yet been possible. Two witnesses were subpoenaed by the defense, 

but Plaintiff’s counsel was not available on the date on which the depositions were set 

due to unforeseen circumstances out of their control that arose. Another individual, the 

individual that made the call that prompted law enforcement to respond to Plaintiff’s 

residence, is likely in-custody in state prison, and may need to be deposed in custody, if 

the parties decide his deposition is needed. The depositions of Defendant Christopher 

Hendee and Deputy Michael Sierra (who was present at the time of the shooting) still 

need to be scheduled, and will be set very soon, to be held in February. Counsel for the 

parties have agreed to possibly hold off on the deposition of former Sheriff Adam

Christianson, until after a mediation is held, since Defendant Christianson currently 

resides out of state.

4. At the time the current schedule was crafted and submitted, the undersigned counsel for 

Plaintiff was of the understanding that some extra time was “baked” into the schedule, to 

allow for the possibility that some of the deadlines would need to be extended without 

impacting the pretrial conference and jury trial dates; that eventuality has come to 

fruition.

5. While all parties have agreed that the proposed modifications will allow the parties 

additional time to adequately prepare for and ensure meaningful settlement discussions, 

the parties are mindful of the overcrowded Eastern District of California docket and the 

demands placed on Eastern District magistrate judges. To ease some of those constraints 

and to facilitate a full-day, robust settlement discussion, the parties believe that this case 

is best suited to be resolved in private mediation. One potential mediator that the parties

Case 1:18-cv-01702-DAD-EPG Document 16 Filed 01/24/20 Page 3 of 5
STIP. & ORDER TO AMEND SCHEDULING ORDER (ECF NO. 9)

Case No. 1:18-cv-01702-DAD-EPG 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

are considering is Judge Raul Ramirez (Ret.), who has experience in similar matters.

Whether he or another mediator is selected, the parties plan to obtain a date on which the 

mediator will be available to mediate this case soon, which will be for a time shortly after

key discovery has concluded.

6. If ADR efforts are unsuccessful, Plaintiff anticipates the following additional work is 

needed to properly prepare for trial: depositions of certain of the 25 individuals listed in 

the Defendants’ Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures that are Stanislaus County employees,

depositions of certain of the 11 individuals listed in the Defendants’ Rule 26(a)(1) 

disclosures that are not Stanislaus County employees, the depositions of Stanislaus 

County Sheriff Adam Christianson, possibly the deposition of Modesto Police Chief

Galen Carroll or other supervisors from the Modesto Police Department (Defendant 

Hendee’s former employer), multiple Persons Most Knowledgeable concerning

Stanislaus County’s policies and procedures, various experts, and possibly damages 

witnesses. 

For the foregoing reasons, the parties respectfully request that this Court enter an order 

extending the schedule in this case as set forth in the chart above. 

IT IS SO STIPULATED, THROUGH COUNSEL OF RECORD.

Dated: January 24, 2020 LAW OFFICE OF SANJAY S. SCHMIDT

-andTHE BOGAN LAW FIRM, PC

/s/ Sanjay S. Schmidt 

By: SANJAY S. SCHMIDT

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Dated: January 24, 2020 DAN FARRAR, Attorney at Law

/s/ Dan Farrar (authorized 01-23-2020)

By: DAN FARRAR

Attorney for Defendants

Case 1:18-cv-01702-DAD-EPG Document 16 Filed 01/24/20 Page 4 of 5
STIP. & ORDER TO AMEND SCHEDULING ORDER (ECF NO. 9)

Case No. 1:18-cv-01702-DAD-EPG 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

ORDER

Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties (ECF No. 15) and finding that good cause exists, 

the Court grants the request to modify the Scheduling Order (ECF No. 9) as follows: 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 24, 2020 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Event Current Date or Deadline New Date or Deadline

Nonexpert Discovery Cut-off February 7, 2020 April 17, 2020

Expert Disclosure March 6, 2020 May 15, 2020 

Rebuttal Expert Disclosure April 3, 2020 June 12, 2020

Expert Discovery Cut-off May 1, 2020 July 10, 2020

Dispositive Motions June 15, 2020 July 27, 2020

Pretrial Conference October 13, 2020, 1:30 p.m. October 13, 2020, 1:30 p.m.

Jury Trial December 8, 2020, 8:30 a.m. December 8, 2020, 8:30 a.m.

Case 1:18-cv-01702-DAD-EPG Document 16 Filed 01/24/20 Page 5 of 5