Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00317/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00317-7/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
County of Alameda California, Office of County Counsel
Defendant
Renee Lias
Plaintiff

Document Text:

DEC OF COUNSEL RE SUPPORT FOR EXTENSION OF DISCOVERY CUT-OFF 

C05 00317 SI 

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

Stephine M. Wells SBN 13148 

William R. Hopkins SBN 170122 

WELLS & HOPKINS 

Attorneys at Law 

1628 Tiburon Avenue 

Tiburon, CA 94920 

(415) 435-5507 

(415) 435-5597 (Fax) 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

RENEE LIAS 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

RENEE LIAS, 

 Plaintiff 

vs. 

COUNTY OF ALAMEDA CALIFORNIA, 

OFFICE OF COUNTY COUNSEL, 

 

 Defendants. 

--------------------------------------------------------

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No.CO5-00317 SI 

DECLARATION OF COUNSEL IN 

SUPPORT OF REQUEST FOR EXTENSION 

OF DISCOVERY CUT-OFF 

Judge: Hon. Susan Illston 

I, Stephine M. Wells, am the Attorney for Plaintiff in this Matter. If called to testify, I would testify 

competently to the following of my own personal knowledge. 

Case 3:05-cv-00317-SI Document 51-1 Filed 09/26/2005 Page 1 of 5
 Case 3:05-cv-00317-SI Document 56 Filed 09/29/05 Page 1 of 5
DEC OF COUNSEL RE SUPPORT FOR EXTENSION OF DISCOVERY CUT-OFF 

C05 00317 SI 

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

1. This request arises, in part, out of an inadvertent scheduling error by our office. Unfortunately, 

although Counsel for both sides have communicated on this matter, we have been unable to 

reach a mutually agreeable resolution. 

2. Specifically, we miscalendared the discovery cut-off, scheduling it for the end of October rather 

than the end of September. Therefore, in planning the deposition schedule, we factored in the 

wrong deadline, as we assumed that depositions could be taken in October. 

3. Plaintiff has two remaining depositions that need to be taken. Defendant has a summary 

judgment that is due at the end of this month. We have asked Defendant whether it will agree to 

a brief, two-week extension of the discovery cut off so as to allow us to compete the two 

remaining depositions. In turn, we have expressed to defendant that we are willing to stipulate 

(subject to the Courtís approval) to an extension of the deadline for their filing of the Motion for 

Summary Judgment. That date can be extended two weeks, which would thus allow Plaintiff to 

complete the two depositions. Otherwise, Plaintiff would have to request a continuance on the 

summary judgment opposition so as to allow the additional discovery. 

4. We are therefore respectfully requesting that the Court allow us, as result of this good faith 

mistake in scheduling, to allow us to complete two depositions. These depositions can be 

completed by the second week of October, 2005. 

5. The second matter that needs to be brought to the Courtís attention is the re-scheduling of 

Plaintiffís deposition. Our office provided last week that Plaintiffís deposition could be 

conducted on the week of September 26, 2005, prior to September 20, 2005, the discovery cutoff. This was a last minute scheduling, so as to accommodate Defendantís request. We assumed 

that Plaintiff would, in fact, be able to appear on this date. Moreover, in lieu of Plaintiffís 

counselís own conflicted schedule, we had made arrangement for another attorney to defend 

Plaintiffís deposition. Plaintiff has just recently contacted our office noting that she did not have 

the dates available that we had scheduled for her deposition. We explained to Defendantís 

Case 3:05-cv-00317-SI Document 51-1 Filed 09/26/2005 Page 2 of 5
 Case 3:05-cv-00317-SI Document 56 Filed 09/29/05 Page 2 of 5
DEC OF COUNSEL RE SUPPORT FOR EXTENSION OF DISCOVERY CUT-OFF 

C05 00317 SI 

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

counsel the reason why Plaintiff was unavailable. Our office had also rushed to make dates 

available this week; Plaintiffís counsel had already engaged Mr. Macalino to be available for 

those dates. 

6. Ms. Lias stated that she would try to move her own court schedule around for this week, but , as 

of this juncture, has not been able to do so. Therefore, she is unable to appear at this weekís 

deposition. But, she is able to attend her deposition, if, as requested herein, it can be taken 

within the next two week periodóbeyond the discovery cut-off. 

7. Moreover, she has not been able to make time on such short notice to meet with me so that I can 

prepare her for her deposition. 

8. In lieu of the foregoing, extending the discovery cut ñoff date by two weeks would allow our 

office to better coordinate and produce Plaintiff within that period. Further, Plaintiff could 

complete the two remaining depositions that are needed as well. Defendant could then file its 

Summary Judgment at the end of this two period and/or no later than October 14, 2005. 

 

 WELLS & HOPKINS 

Dated:_______________ By:_______________________________ 

 STEPHINE M. WELLS 

 Attorney for Plaintiff 

 

 

Case 3:05-cv-00317-SI Document 51-1 Filed 09/26/2005 Page 3 of 5
 Case 3:05-cv-00317-SI Document 56 Filed 09/29/05 Page 3 of 5
DEC OF COUNSEL RE SUPPORT FOR EXTENSION OF DISCOVERY CUT-OFF 

C05 00317 SI 

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

RENEE LIAS, 

 Plaintiff 

vs. 

COUNTY OF ALAMEDA CALIFORNIA, 

OFFICE OF COUNTY COUNSEL, 

 

 Defendants. 

--------------------------------------------------------

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No.CO5-00317 SI 

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING 

EXTENSION OF DISCOVERY CUT-OFF 

BY TWO WEEKS; SETTING SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT MOTION FILING DEADLINE 

OUT BY TWO WEEKS 

Judge: Hon. Susan Illston 

1. Discovery Cut-Off in this matter is extended by two weeks. Discovery Cut-Off is now October 

14, 2005. 

2. Plaintiff is must appear for her deposition within this period of time. 

3. Plaintiff is allowed to complete the depositions of the two remaining deponents prior to the 

October 14, 2004, thus Defendant must make these deponents available for deposition before 

October 14, 2004. 

4. The deadline for Defendant to file its Motion fro Summary Judgment is extended to October 14, 

2005 or [October 21, 2005.]This extension does not shorten the notice period for Defendantís 

Motion for Summary Judgment. 

IT IS SO ORDERED 

Case 3:05-cv-00317-SI Document 51-1 Filed 09/26/2005 Page 4 of 5

opposition due: 10/28/05, reply due 11/4/05, hearing 11/18/05 @ 9:00 a.m.

Case 3:05-cv-00317-SI Document 56 Filed 09/29/05 Page 4 of 5
DEC OF COUNSEL RE SUPPORT FOR EXTENSION OF DISCOVERY CUT-OFF 

C05 00317 SI 

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

Dated:_______________ By:____________________________ 

 Susan Illston 

 United States Federal Judge 

 

Case 3:05-cv-00317-SI Document 51-1 Filed 09/26/2005 Page 5 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

GRANTED

Judge Susan Illston

Case 3:05-cv-00317-SI Document 56 Filed 09/29/05 Page 5 of 5