Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00725/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00725-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
California Department of Motor Vehicles
Defendant
John Dovichi
Plaintiff
Robert Venable
Defendant

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

1

Stipulation to Modify the Court’s 9/23/2019 Scheduling Order (1:19-cv-00725-NONE-JLT)

XAVIER BECERRA, State Bar No. 118517

Attorney General of California

CATHERINE WOODBRIDGE, State Bar No. 186186

Supervising Deputy Attorney General

ERICK J. RHOAN, State Bar No. 283588

Deputy Attorney General

1300 I Street, Suite 125

P.O. Box 944255

Sacramento, CA 94244-2550

Telephone: (916) 210-7363

Fax: (916) 322-8288

E-mail: Erick.Rhoan@doj.ca.gov

Attorneys for Defendant R. Venable

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

IN AND FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL DIVISION

JOHN DOVICHI,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 

MOTOR VEHICLES; ROBERT 

VENABLE; and DOES I to 100,

Defendants.

1:19-cv-00725-NONE-JLT

STIPULATION OF PARTIES TO 

MODIFY THE COURT’S SEPTEMBER 

23, 2019 SCHEDULING ORDER; 

PROPOSED ORDER

Plaintiff, John Dovichi, and Defendant, Robert Venable, by and through their respective 

counsels of record, enter into this stipulation to modify the Court’s September 23, 2019 

Scheduling Order. The parties stipulate and agree as follows:

1. The parties seek to continue all dates by ninety-days, all remaining dates in the 

September 23, 2019 Scheduling Order; or similar dates that are convenient for the Court.

2. As illustrated below, the parties agree good cause exists for the modification of the

Scheduling Order and request leave of the Court for the modification, and have diligently sought 

this continuance. 

/ / /

Case 1:19-cv-00725-DAD-JLT Document 31 Filed 04/17/20 Page 1 of 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

2

Stipulation to Modify the Court’s 9/23/2019 Scheduling Order (1:19-cv-00725-NONE-JLT)

3. Defendant Venable has answered the Second Amended Complaint. The parties 

also appeared at the September 23, 2019 scheduling conference, and thereafter the Court issued 

its Scheduling Order. In its Order, the court gave the parties several dates by which to conduct 

discovery and file dispositive motions. The court also set a pre-trial conference for February 2, 

2021, and a jury trial for March 30, 2021.

4. Since the scheduling conference, the parties have exchanged initial disclosures and 

have been conducting written discovery.

5. Beginning on or around January 20, 2020, the parties began discussing the taking 

of Defendant Venable’s deposition along with deposing the arrest team that was present at 

Plaintiff’s arrest on October 20, 2016. After several meet-and-confers, Defendant Venable’s and 

the arrest team’s depositions were set for March 16 and 17, 2020, at Plaintiff’s counsel’s office in 

Bakersfield, California. Defense counsel then arranged pre-deposition preparation meetings with 

the deponents in Bakersfield between March 12 and 13, 2020.

6. On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization declared the then-spreading 

coronavirus (COVID-19) a global pandemic. The next day, March 12, 2020, the Attorney 

General’s Office directed all of its employees to cancel all non-essential travel through April 

2020. Defense counsel was in Bakersfield, California conducting pre-deposition preparation 

meetings with the deponents when the Attorney General Office’s travel ban was imposed.

7. When defense counsel returned to Sacramento, he notified Plaintiff’s counsel to 

cancel the deponent’s depositions and to re-scheduled them at a later date to be determined. The 

parties are currently arranging to take the deponents’ depositions in late May or early June 2020. 

Defense counsel is expecting his first child to be born in late April or early May 2020, however, 

both his wife and child have compromised immune systems as a result of the pregnancy that did 

not warrant travel for these depositions. Deponents’ depositions will most likely continue via 

videoconference. Furthermore, when his child is born, defense counsel will take a two-week leave 

from work to bond with his son. Defense counsel will also be out of the office for the month of 

August 2020 for paternity leave. 

/ / /

Case 1:19-cv-00725-DAD-JLT Document 31 Filed 04/17/20 Page 2 of 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

3

Stipulation to Modify the Court’s 9/23/2019 Scheduling Order (1:19-cv-00725-NONE-JLT)

8. Aside from the deponents’ depositions, the depositions of the Plaintiff, and various 

other eye witnesses may also need to be taken. The arrangements for these depositions will also 

have to be made in light of the ongoing COVID-19 emergency.

9. Based upon the foregoing, the parties are diligently litigating this matter. However, 

due to the factors identified above, the parties require additional time to complete discovery.

10. To permit the parties sufficient time to complete discovery, the parties have agreed 

to extend the following deadlines from the court’s September 23, 2019 Scheduling Order: 

Deadline Current Date Proposed Date

Non-Expert Discovery June 26, 2020 September 24, 2020

Expert Disclosures July 10, 2020 October 8, 2020

Rebuttal Expert Disclosures August 7, 2020 November 5, 2020

Expert Discovery August 31, 2020 November 30, 2020

Non-Dispositive Motions September 16, 2020 (and 

heard no later than October 

14, 2020)

December 15, 2020 (and 

heard no later than January 

12, 2021)

Dispositive Motions October 28, 2020 (and heard 

no later than December 9, 

2020)

January 26, 2021 (and heard 

no later than March 9, 2021)

Pre-Trial Conference February 2, 2021 May 3, 2021

Trial March 30, 2021 June 28, 2021

11. The other provisions of the September 23, 2019 Scheduling Order shall remain in 

effect.

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 1:19-cv-00725-DAD-JLT Document 31 Filed 04/17/20 Page 3 of 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

4

Stipulation to Modify the Court’s 9/23/2019 Scheduling Order (1:19-cv-00725-NONE-JLT)

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

Dated: April 15, 2020 /s/ Erick J. Rhoan

ERICK J. RHOAN

Deputy Attorney General

Attorneys for Defendant R. Venable

Dated: April 16, 2020 /s/ Joseph Whittington (auth. 4/16/2020)__

JOSEPH WHITTINGTON

Rodriguez & Associates

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

SA2019102796

33989477.docx

Case 1:19-cv-00725-DAD-JLT Document 31 Filed 04/17/20 Page 4 of 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

5

Stipulation to Modify the Court’s 9/23/2019 Scheduling Order (1:19-cv-00725-NONE-JLT)

PROPOSED ORDER

Based upon the stipulation of counsel and good cause appearing, the court ORDERS:

1. The joint stipulation to modify the Court’s September 23, 2019 Scheduling Order 

is GRANTED;

2. The case schedule is amended as follows:

a. The parties shall complete all non-expert discovery no later than September 

24, 2020;

b. Expert disclosures shall be due no later than October 8, 2020;

c. Rebuttal expert disclosures shall be due no later than November 5, 2020;

d. The parties shall complete all expert discovery no later than November 30, 

2020;

e. Non-dispositive motions shall be filed no later than December 15, 2020; and 

shall be heard no later than January 12, 2021.

f. Dispositive motions shall be filed no later than January 26, 2021; and shall 

be heard no later than March 9, 2021.

g. The pre-trial conference shall be re-scheduled to May 4, 2021;

h. The jury trial in this case shall be re-scheduled to start on June 29, 2021;

3. All other deadlines and requirements set forth in the Court’s September 23, 2019

Scheduling Order remain in effect.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 17, 2020 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-00725-DAD-JLT Document 31 Filed 04/17/20 Page 5 of 5