Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02866/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02866-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Dressler Company
Defendant
Fred H. Dressler Company
Defendant
Frederick Company
Defendant
Friends of Hope Valley
Plaintiff

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

STIPULATION; [PROPOSED] ORDER

CASE NO. 9-CV-02866-JAM-KJN

ELLISON FOLK (State Bar No. 149232) 

MATTHEW D. ZINN (State Bar No. 214587) 

MARY J. REICHERT (State Bar No. 264280) 

SHUTE, MIHALY & WEINBERGER LLP 

396 Hayes Street 

San Francisco, CA 94102 

Telephone: (415) 552-7272 

Facsimile: (415) 552-5816 

H. SINCLAIR KERR, JR. (State Bar No. 61713) 

KERR & WAGSTAFFE LLP 

100 Spear Street, Suite 1800 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

Telephone (415) 371-8500 

Facsimile: (415) 371-0500 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

FRIENDS OF HOPE VALLEY 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SACRAMENTO DIVISION 

FRIENDS OF HOPE VALLEY, a California 

public benefit corporation, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

FREDERICK COMPANY, a/k/a DRESSLER 

COMPANY, a/k/a FRED H. DRESSLER 

COMPANY, a Nevada Partnership, 

Defendant. 

Case No. 2:09-CV-02866-JAM-KJN 

STIPULATION RE EXTENSION OF 

DEADLINE FOR COMPLETION OF 

DISCOVERY; ORDER

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:09-cv-02866-JAM-KJN Document 19 Filed 07/01/10 Page 1 of 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

1

STIPULATION; [PROPOSED] ORDER

CASE NO. 9-CV-02866-JAM-KJN

This stipulation between Plaintiff Friends of Hope Valley (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant 

Frederick Company (“Defendant”) is made in light of the following facts. The Court entered its 

Scheduling Order as of January 4, 2010. The Scheduling Order sets the cut off for all discovery 

at August 6, 2010. Since the entry of the Court’s Scheduling Order the parties have diligently 

pursued discovery and exchange of information. Both parties have (1) produced and 

supplemented their document productions; (2) produced and supplemented their Rule 26 

disclosures; and (3) responded to written interrogatories. In addition, pursuant to Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6), Defendant took the deposition of Plaintiff’s Person Most 

Knowledgeable on a number of subjects on May 24, 2010. Defendant has noticed the deposition 

of a percipient witness, Jay Davison, to be taken on July 15, 2010, and had noticed the 

deposition of Dave Tyack for June 15, 2010, but due to the witness’ pending surgery, was 

continued to be taken in August. Plaintiff and Defendant are arranging dates for Defendant to 

be deposed during the second half of July. 

There is a discovery dispute between the parties that has impacted the timeline for 

conducting depositions. The parties engaged in extensive meet and confer efforts but reached an 

impasse. Defendant has filed a motion to compel, which was originally set for hearing on July 

1, 2010, and continued by stipulation to July 15, 2010, to allow Plaintiff additional time to 

prepare a response and to accommodate the Court’s requirement that the Joint Statement of 

Discovery Dispute be filed two weeks before the hearing. 

The outcome of the discovery dispute will impact which and how many of Plaintiff’s 

disclosed witnesses need to be deposed before trial. The parties agree that there may not be 

enough time following the July 15, 2010 hearing on Defendant’s motion to compel for 

Defendant to take the depositions it will need to take before the current discovery cutoff of 

August 6, 2010. Most witnesses in this matter reside in Alpine County and Nevada and taking 

their depositions will require significant travel and expense. The parties have endeavored to 

coordinate dates to avoid repetitive travel. The parties have discussed and agree that the 

discovery deadline may be extended to September 13, 2010, without changing any other dates in 

the Scheduling Order. 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:09-cv-02866-JAM-KJN Document 19 Filed 07/01/10 Page 2 of 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

2

STIPULATION; [PROPOSED] ORDER

CASE NO. 9-CV-02866-JAM-KJN

The parties have sought no previous extensions of any deadline in the Court’s Scheduling 

Order. 

THEREFORE, Plaintiff Friends of Hope Valley and Defendant Frederick Company 

stipulate and agree as follows: 

1. The deadline for Plaintiff and Defendant to complete discovery set forth in the 

Court's January 4, 2010, Pre-trial Scheduling Order be extended from August 6, 2010, to 

September 13, 2010. 

DATED: June 30, 2010 SHUTE, MIHALY & WEINBERGER LLP 

KERR & WAGSTAFFE LLP 

By: /s/ Matthew D. Zinn 

MATTHEW D. ZINN 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

FRIENDS OF HOPE VALLEY 

DATED: June 30, 2010 HANSON BRIDGETT LLP 

By: /s/ Neil R. Bardack (as authorized on 6/30/10) 

NEIL R. BARDACK

Attorneys for Defendant 

FREDERICK COMPANY 

GOOD CAUSE HAVING BEEN SHOWN, IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Date: June 30, 2010 /s/ John A. Mendez________________________

 HON. JOHN A. MENDEZ, DISTRICT JUDGE 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:09-cv-02866-JAM-KJN Document 19 Filed 07/01/10 Page 3 of 3