Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02104/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02104-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
City of Stockton
Defendant
Paul Dona
Defendant
Gregory Dunn
Defendant
Jeremy Edens
Defendant
Thomas Hulburt
Defendant
Richard Maddern
Defendant
Jerry Moore
Plaintiff
Gerardo Munoz
Defendant
Timothy Swails
Defendant
Teresa Wentland
Defendant

Document Text:

Stipulation & [Proposed] Order to Extend Time to Complete VDRP & Extend Expert Deadlines: 

Case No. 2:13-cv-02104-WBS-EFB 

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

Sanjay S. Schmidt (SBN 247475) 

LAW OFFICE OF SANJAY S. SCHMIDT 

1388 Sutter Street, Suite 810 

San Francisco, CA 94109 

Telephone: (415) 563-8583 

Facsimile: (415) 223-9717 

e-mail: ss@sanjayschmidtlaw.com 

Tai C. Bogan (SBN 241784) 

THE BOGAN LAW FIRM 

1202 “H” St., Suite D 

Modesto, California 95354 

Telephone: (209) 566-9591 

Facsimile: (209) 566-9668 

e-mail: taiboganlaw@gmail.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiff, 

JERRY MOORE 

Ted Daniel Wood, Deputy City Attorney

(State Bar No. 191768)

Stockton City Attorney’s Office 

425 N. El Dorado Street, Second Floor 

Stockton, CA 95202 

Telephone: (209) 937-8914 

Facsimile: (209) 937-8898 

e-mail: Ted.Wood@stocktongov.com 

Attorneys for Defendants, 

CITY OF STOCKTON, PAUL DONA, 

GREGORY DUNN, JEREMY EDENS, 

THOMAS HULBURT, GERARDO MUNOZ, 

TERESA WENTLAND, RICHARD 

MADDERN, and TIMOTHY SWAILS 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – SACRAMENTO DIVISION 

JERRY MOORE, 

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

CITY OF STOCKTON, a municipal 

corporation, STOCKTON POLICE 

OFFICERS Paul Dona, Individually, 

Gregory Dunn, Individually, Jeremy Edens, 

Individually, Thomas Hulburt, Individually, 

Gerardo Munoz, Individually, Teresa 

Wentland, Individually, STOCKTON 

POLICE SERGEANTS Richard Maddern 

and Timothy Swails, in their individual and 

supervisory capacities, and DOES 1 

THROUGH 40, Jointly and Severally, 

 Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No. 2:13-cv-02104-WBS-EFB 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER TO EXTEND TIME TO 

COMPLETE VOLUNTARY DISPUTE 

RESOLUTION PROGRAM (VDRP) 

UNDER LOCAL RULE 271 AND TO 

EXTEND DEADLINES FOR EXPERT 

DISCLOSURE, RULE 26(a)(2) REPORTS, 

AND REBUTTAL EXPERT 

DISCLOSURE 

Case 2:13-cv-02104-WBS-EFB Document 32 Filed 11/10/15 Page 1 of 5
Stipulation & [Proposed] Order to Extend Time to Complete VDRP & Extend Expert Deadlines: 

Case No. 2:13-cv-02104-WBS-EFB 

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

The parties respectfully submit the following Stipulation and Proposed Order: 

STIPULATION 

WHEREAS, the parties to the above-entitled action have agreed to participate in the 

Voluntary Dispute Resolution Program (“VDRP”) and were referred to the program on June 

19, 2015 (Dkt. 28). The parties selected a neutral from the list provided, one Marc Fong, Esq., 

and, once the parties were contacted by Mr. Fong, a session was ultimately scheduled for 

November 12, 2015. Counsel for the parties has been in touch during the intervening time 

period and the issues concerning this case have been discussed. Counsel for Defendants has 

worked diligently to request documentation from Plaintiff’s counsel needed for their case 

evaluation since the case was submitted to the VDRP program. Counsel for the Plaintiff has 

been working to obtain all the records and medical bills needed in order to conduct a 

meaningful VDRP session; however, unfortunately, there are still some missing bills and 

records, despite the submission of numerous requests. Part of the problem appears to be the 

record keeping system employed by one provider in particular. 

Furthermore, in the course of preparing this case, it has become apparent to the 

undersigned counsel for the Plaintiff that additional information and elaboration is needed 

concerning the nature and extent of Plaintiff’s injuries, including his residual injuries, his future 

prognosis, and the need for medical care in the future. Plaintiff’s counsel cannot meaningfully 

evaluate the case and formulate an informed demand prior to the November 12, 2015 VDRP 

session without further elucidation on these issues. The information and elaboration that is 

needed will not be available in time for the November 12, 2015 session. Accordingly, the 

undersigned notified counsel for the Defendants, as well as Mr. Fong, of this issue and 

requested that the session be re-scheduled to December, by which time we are very optimistic 

that we will have what is needed to appropriately participate in VDRP. A replacement date 

that is mutually agreeable for the parties and Mr. Fong has been selected: December 14, 

2015. Plaintiff’s counsel wishes to emphasize that the need to re-schedule the VDRP 

session is due entirely to the foregoing reasons and is in no way whatsoever attributable to, 

Case 2:13-cv-02104-WBS-EFB Document 32 Filed 11/10/15 Page 2 of 5
Stipulation & [Proposed] Order to Extend Time to Complete VDRP & Extend Expert Deadlines: 

Case No. 2:13-cv-02104-WBS-EFB 

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

nor the fault of, the Defendants. Defense counsel is ready and willing to proceed with VDRP, 

as soon as Plaintiff’s counsel can deliver a demand to commence the process. 

Local Rule 271(j)(1) provides, in relevant part that: “the session shall be held as soon as 

reasonably possible, but no more than ninety-one (91) days after the Neutral is selected, unless 

otherwise ordered by the Court[.]” Here, the VDRP session will be held outside of these 

temporal parameters. The parties have met-and-conferred, however, and are aware of the 

general nature of the case and the issues presented. The parties still wish to make a good faith 

effort at participating in VDRP prior to engaging in full-blown litigation because this will 

provide the opportunity to avoid the needless expenditure of money and the accrual of 

attorney’s fees for a case that may be resolvable through the VDRP and negotiation. These 

interests are part of the purpose of the VDRP, as set forth in Local Rule 271(a)(1). Thus, 

extending the time period within which to complete VDRP under Local Rule 271(j)(1) 

advances the central purposes of Local Rule 271. 

Accordingly, based on the circumstances described above, the parties respectfully and 

jointly request that the Court issue a further order, extending the deadline within which to hold 

the VDRP session to December 31, 2015. The parties fully expect the session to proceed on 

December 14, 2015. Plaintiff’s counsel is diligently marshaling all needed documentation. 

WHEREAS, the current Scheduling Order (Dkt. 24) sets forth the following Expert 

Disclosure Deadlines and Rebuttal Expert Disclosure Deadlines: 

Expert Disclosure and Rule 26(a)(2) Reports must be produced by no later than: 

December 7, 2015. 

Rebuttal Expert Disclosure and Rule 26(a)(2) Reports must be produced on or before: 

January 11, 20161

 

As explained above, the parties have scheduled a mediation session on December 14, 

2015. In order to advance the interests articulated in Local Rule 271(a)(1) and give the VDRP 

 

1

 The Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order states “January 11, 2015” – but the parties presume 

this meant January 11, 2016. 

Case 2:13-cv-02104-WBS-EFB Document 32 Filed 11/10/15 Page 3 of 5
Stipulation & [Proposed] Order to Extend Time to Complete VDRP & Extend Expert Deadlines: 

Case No. 2:13-cv-02104-WBS-EFB 

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

mediation session a chance, the parties wish to extend the Expert and Rebuttal Expert 

disclosure deadlines to an appropriate date, which requires amending the scheduling order. 

 WHEREFORE, THE PARTIES HEREBY STIPULATE and respectfully request the 

following: 

(1) That the deadline within which to hold the VDRP session be extended to December 31, 

2015; and, 

(2) That the Scheduling Order (Dkt. 24) be amended or modified to reflect the deadlines 

listed below: 

Expert Disclosure and Rule 26(a)(2) Reports must be produced by no later than: 

February 15, 2015;

 

Rebuttal Expert Disclosure and Rule 26(a)(2) Reports must be produced on or before: 

March 21, 2015.

All other deadlines, hearings, and the Pretrial Conference and Trial dates would remain 

as set. 

Dated: November 9, 2015 Respectfully Submitted, 

 LAW OFFICE OF SANJAY S. SCHMIDT

and 

THE BOGAN LAW FIRM 

 

 /s/ Sanjay S. Schmidt 

 By: SANJAY S. SCHMIDT 

 Attorneys for Plaintiff 

Dated: November 9, 2015 Respectfully Submitted, 

STOCKTON CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE 

 

 /s/ Ted D. Wood (as authorized on 11/06/15)2

 

 by: TED D. WOOD 

 Attorneys for Defendants 

 

2

 Pursuant to Local Rule 131(e), approval has been obtained from counsel to submit this 

document on counsel’s behalf. 

Case 2:13-cv-02104-WBS-EFB Document 32 Filed 11/10/15 Page 4 of 5
Stipulation & [Proposed] Order to Extend Time to Complete VDRP & Extend Expert Deadlines: 

Case No. 2:13-cv-02104-WBS-EFB 

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

[PROPOSED] ORDER 

 Having considered the parties’ Stipulated Request and good cause appearing therefor, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Stipulated Request is granted, as set forth in the 

Stipulation above: 

The deadline within which to hold the VDRP session shall be extended to December 

31, 2015. 

The Scheduling Order (Dkt. 24) shall be amended to reflect the deadlines listed below: 

1. The deadline for Expert Disclosure and the production of Rule 26(a)(2) Reports shall 

be extended from December 7, 2015 as follows: Expert Disclosure and Rule 26(a)(2) 

Reports must be produced by no later than February 15, 2016; 

2. The deadline for Rebuttal Expert Disclosure and Rule 26(a)(2) production shall be 

extended from January 11, 20163 as follows: Rebuttal Expert Disclosure and Rule 

26(a)(2) Reports must be produced on or before March 21, 2016;

3. All other deadlines, hearings, and the Pretrial Conference and Trial dates shall remain 

as set. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 DATED: November 9, 2015 _______________________________________ 

EDMUND F. BRENNAN 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

3

 The Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order states “January 11, 2015” – but this meant January 11, 

2016. 

Case 2:13-cv-02104-WBS-EFB Document 32 Filed 11/10/15 Page 5 of 5