Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00985/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00985-6/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Bill Blake
Defendant
David C. Corser
Plaintiff
Gloria Cortez-Keene
Defendant
Paul Fillebrown
Defendant
Larry Gonzales
Defendant
Maria Socorro Gonzales
Defendant
County Of Merced
Defendant
L. Miller
Defendant
Parrish
Defendant
Mark Pazin
Defendant
Smallwood
Defendant
Ruth Stone
Defendant
Demetrios Tatum
Defendant
Zyskowski
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID C. CORSER,

Plaintiff,

v.

COUNTY OF MERCED, etc., et al.,

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:05-cv-0985 OWW LJO

SUPPLEMENTAL SCHEDULING

CONFERENCE ORDER 

Further Scheduling

Conference Date: 11/17/06

8:45 Ctrm. 3

I. Date of Scheduling Conference.

August 17, 2006.

II. Appearances Of Counsel.

Kallis & Assoc., by M. Jeffery Kallis, Esq., appeared with

Plaintiff David C. Corser. Mr. Kallis is the new counsel of

record for David C. Corser.

McCormick, Barstow, Sheppard, Wayte & Carruth by Justus C.

Spillner, Esq., appeared on behalf of Defendant Maria Socorro

Gonzales. 

Michael Mason, Esq., appeared on behalf of Defendants County

of Merced, Gloria Cortez-Keene, Demetrios Tatum, Sheriff Mark

Pazin, Undersheriff Bill Blake, Commander Parrish, Deputy

Zyskowski, Deputy L. Miller, Volunteer Smallwood, Paul Fillebrown

Case 1:05-cv-00985-OWW -GSA Document 63 Filed 08/21/06 Page 1 of 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

26

27

28

2

and Ruth Stone.

Hewitt & Prout by Sharon Futerman, Esq., appeared on behalf

of Defendant Larry Gonzales.

III. Status of the Case. 

1. All Defendants have answered the Complaint. The

parties have been unable to reach a settlement in the case. A

Further Scheduling Conference will be held November 17, 2006, at

8:45 a.m. in Courtroom 3. The parties shall, within three (3)

days prior to the conference, file a Joint Supplemental

Scheduling Statement to advise the Court of the proposed schedule

for the case. 

2. The existing pending discovery and scheduled Motion to

Quash Subpoena are ordered off calendar. The parties agree to

meet and confer regarding Defendants’ discovery request. 

3. The parties agree to meet and confer regarding the

Joint Supplemental Scheduling Statement on October 31, 2006, at

9:00 a.m. The parties may conduct this meeting via telephonic

conference for their convenience. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 17, 2006 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00985-OWW -GSA Document 63 Filed 08/21/06 Page 2 of 2