Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-02794/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-02794-6/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
George Atondo
Plaintiff
County of Solano
Defendant
Andrew Swanson
Defendant

Document Text:

LAW OFFICES OF 

MATHENY 

SEARS 

LINKERT 

&JAIME LLP

3638 AMERICAN RIVER DRIVE 

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95864 

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 Continue Trial and Pre-Trial Conference and to Extend Pre-Trial Deadlines 

Law Offices of 

MATHENY SEARS LINKERT & JAIME LLP

RAYMOND BANGLE III (SBN 105057) 

3638 American River Drive 

Sacramento, CA 95864 

rbangle@mathenysears.com 

Telephone: (916) 978-3434 

Facsimile: (916) 978-3430 

Attorneys for Defendants, COUNTY OF SOLANO 

and ANDREW SWANSON 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

GEORGE ATONDO, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

COUNTY OF SOLANO, ANDREW 

SWANSON in his individual capacity, and 

DOES 1 through 15, inclusive, 

Defendants. 

Case No. 2:08-cv-02794-FCD-EFB

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO 

CONTINUE TRIAL AND PRE-TRIAL 

CONFERENCE AND TO EXTEND PRETRIAL DEADLINES 

The parties to this matter, plaintiff GEORGE ATONDO and defendants COUNTY OF 

SOLANO and ANDREW SWANSON, hereby stipulate and agree to continue the trial in this 

matter as well as the pre-trial conference and all pretrial deadlines and appearances, because of 

the parties need to resolve certain issues with regard to the production of documents and to 

complete a number of depositions of parties, party representatives and third party witnesses. This 

continuance is necessary and for good cause because of the sheer number of witnesses that need 

to be subpoenaed and deposed, the difficulty caused by the non-cooperation of several of these 

witnesses as well as conflicting trials and other events on counsels’ calendars. 

 Pursuant to the Status (PreTrial Scheduling) Order in this matter dated October 2, 2009, 

all discovery shall be completed by September 10, 2010. Expert disclosures are due by 

Case 2:08-cv-02794-KJM-EFB Document 35 Filed 07/13/10 Page 1 of 4
LAW OFFICES OF 

MATHENY 

SEARS 

LINKERT 

&

JAIME LLP

3638 AMERICAN RIVER DRIVE 

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95864 

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

September 24, 2010. Dispositive motions must be heard by January 14, 2011. The Final PreTrial 

Conference is set for March 18, 2011. And trial is set for May 17, 2011. 

 The parties have conducted written discovery, but a number of issues have arisen 

regarding the production of documents requiring a protective order for confidential information as 

well as a motion to compel by plaintiff which is presently set to be heard on July 21, 2010. The 

parties are also in the process of meeting and conferring on a deposition schedule that will include 

at least fifteen (15) and as many as twenty-four (24) depositions, including the second day of the 

plaintiff, defendant Andrew Swanson’s and those of other key employees, supervisors, former 

employees and other witnesses. 

The plaintiff has been diligently pursuing discovery since receiving and serving initial 

disclosures on January 19, 2010. Plaintiff’s counsel has been actively engaged in: extensive fact 

gathering; preparing document productions (requests for production to defendants served on 

February 26, 2010, April 23, 2010, June 7, 2010, and June 10, 2010; response to requests for 

production of documents to Plaintiff served on April 26, 2010), interrogatories (served on 

defendants on April 30, 2010, and June 7, 2010), plaintiff’s answers to interrogatories (by 

agreement of the parties will be served by July 23, 2010); preparing and filing a motion to 

compel further discovery responses (motion filed on June 16, 2010). Plaintiff’s counsel has 

conferred with defense counsel regarding documents and items not yet produced on several 

occasions. 

 Defendants have been diligent in trying to defend this case but the discovery generated on 

both sides exceeds even defense counsel’s broadest expectations. First, the defense anticipated in 

being able to use an investigator to interview many witnesses as opposed to deposing these 

witnesses, but it turns out that many witnesses are uncooperative and need to be deposed. 

Consequently, the number of depositions in this case has increased and probably exceeds the 

initial agreed-upon amount. In fact, plaintiff’s attorney has asked for an additional two 

depositions making plaintiff’s requested amount twelve (12) and it now appears as if the defense 

will have to at least take this many depositions. Furthermore, the defense has been diligently 

responding to significant discovery requests from plaintiff’s attorney producing almost three 

Case 2:08-cv-02794-KJM-EFB Document 35 Filed 07/13/10 Page 2 of 4
LAW OFFICES OF 

MATHENY 

SEARS 

LINKERT 

&

JAIME LLP

3638 AMERICAN RIVER DRIVE 

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95864 

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

thousand (3,000) documents in five (5) separate requests to produce documents and answering 

dozens of interrogatories propounded to the defense. Finally, dozens of requests for admissions 

have been propounded on both defendants and the defense has been diligently responding to this 

discovery for the last month or two, further delaying the ability to engage in the required 

deposition schedules. Finally, the defense has noticed depositions which have been continued 

due to scheduling conflicts which make the ability to complete the scheduled depositions under 

the previous cut-off deadlines difficult, if not impossible, and counsel for defendants have already 

taken one full of Mr. Atondo’s deposition. It should be pointed out that both counsel requested 

additional time for completion of discovery in their original submission to the Court. Counsel are 

being diligent in their prosecution and defense of this case. This case is a difficult and complex 

case requiring extensive discovery. 

 In addition to the issues involving written discovery that have delayed the completion of 

discovery in this matter, counsel for plaintiff has been engaged in a trial in the Northern District 

of California, Gordon v. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Case No. C08-3630 BZ, 

from May 10-19, 2010. They also have been preparing a motion for class certification in the 

Northern District, Fobbs v.City of Union City, Case No. C09-02723 PJH, which is set to be filed 

no later than July 21, 2010. In anticipation of the Motion, thirty (30) individual class members, 

three (3) Rule 30(b)(6) witnesses and one (1) third party witness have been deposed since June 1, 

2010. In addition, the Court has convened three (3) separate and lengthy discovery hearings and 

required all counsel to meet and confer extensively before the hearings. Discovery cut-off in that 

matter was July 7, 2010, however, the parties anticipate completing another four (4) to five (5) 

during the week of July 12th. Similarly, counsel for defendant prepared for and appeared at a trial 

in Sonoma County Superior Court, Williams v. Miller, et al., Case No. SCV239280, on March 16, 

2010, and was on vacation for part of April. In addition, defendants have found it difficult to 

serve and gain the cooperation of several non-party witnesses, which they had originally thought 

could be noticed without issue. 

 Going forward, the parties do not believe they can complete the depositions by the 

September 10, 2010, cut-off because, (1) plaintiff’s lead counsel has a pre-scheduled vacation 

Case 2:08-cv-02794-KJM-EFB Document 35 Filed 07/13/10 Page 3 of 4
LAW OFFICES OF 

MATHENY 

SEARS 

LINKERT 

&

JAIME LLP

3638 AMERICAN RIVER DRIVE 

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95864 

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

from July 23 – August 10, 2010, and (2) defendant’s counsel has upcoming depositions and 

mediations in several other matters and his associate attorney, who was scheduled to cover 

several of the depositions, has left the firm. The primary associate in the plaintiff’s firm assigned 

to the case also resigned on June 30, 2010 due to medical issues. A new associate is working to 

get up to speed on the case. The parties therefore request a continuance of two months to ensure 

that they complete the depositions. 

IT IS THEREFORE HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties hereto 

through their respective attorneys of record that the trial date and all pre-trial deadlines be 

continued approximately two months, as follows: 

1. Completion of non-expert discovery - November 10, 2010; 

2. Disclosure of expert witnesses - November 24, 2010; 

3. Supplemental disclosure of experts – December 15, 2010; 

4. Dispositive motions – March 11, 2011; 

5. Final Pre-Trial Conference – April 22, 2011, at 2:00 p.m.; and 

6. Trial Date – August 16, 2011, at 9:00 a.m. 

Dated: July 12, 2010. MATHENY SEARS LINKERT & JAIME LLP 

By: /s/ Raymond Bangle III

RAYMOND BANGLE III, Attorneys for 

Defendants, COUNTY OF SOLANO and 

ANDREW SWANSON 

Dated: July 12, 2010. PRICE AND ASSOCIATES

BY:/S/ PAMELA PRICE __________________

PAMELA PRICE, Attorneys for Plaintiff, 

GEORGE ATONDO

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: July 12, 2010 

Case 2:08-cv-02794-KJM-EFB Document 35 Filed 07/13/10 Page 4 of 4