Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_00-cv-05176/USCOURTS-caed-1_00-cv-05176-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Louis Caldera
Defendant
California Army National Guard
Defendant
Venette Marriner
Plaintiff
Secretary of the Army
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

McGREGOR W. SCOTT

United States Attorney

BRIAN W. ENOS

Assistant United States Attorney

Federal Building, Room 3654

1130 “O” Street

Fresno, California 93721

Telephone: (559) 498-7272

Facsimile: (559) 498-7432

Attorneys for Defendant United States of America

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VENETTE MARRINER, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

CALIFORNIA ARMY NATIONAL )

GUARD AND LOUIS CALDERA, )

SECRETARY OF THE ARMY, )

)

Defendants. )

 )

1:00-cv-05176 LJO

STIPULATION AND ORDER AMENDING

SCHEDULING ORDER

Plaintiff Venette Marriner (“plaintiff”) and defendant

California Army National Guard (“Army”) stipulate, by and through

the undersigned counsel, to the following revised case schedule

as specified below and respectfully request that the Court so

approve.

The parties seek to slightly extend this action’s remaining

pretrial deadlines and trial date as specified below. Good cause

exists in support of this stipulation. To explain, the current

litigation schedule requires the parties to file their Joint

Pretrial Statement on July 28, 2006 - four days before an August

1, 2006 hearing on a pretrial Rule 12/in limine motion recently

filed by the Army and one week prior to an August 4, 2006

Case 1:00-cv-05176-LJO Document 78 Filed 07/17/06 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 2

pretrial conference. As portions of the Joint Pretrial Statement

are being prepared, many issues relating to the ultimate scope of

the case and its relevant evidence remain in a state of flux

until the Court rules on the Army’s motion. This makes

identifying exhibits and the scope of remaining legal disputes

(two necessary and substantial components of such statements)

exceedingly difficult.

In addition, adhering to a July 28 filing deadline regarding

the Joint Pretrial Statement would be virtually unobtainable for

the Army. Specifically, counsel for the Army will be unavailable

in depositions in a high dollar eminent domain matter (in which

this Court is involved) on July 19, 21, 24 and 31, 2006. Should

this case’s pretrial schedule not change, the Army’s reply brief

regarding the above motion would also be due on July 25, 2006. 

Most importantly, a death in Army counsel’s family will require

him to attend a memorial service off the California coast on July

26, 2006. In light of the above as well as the Court’s schedule,

the parties hereby stipulate to the continuance of this action’s

pretrial hearing, pretrial conference and trial date as specified

below. The parties also request the Court to endorse this

stipulation by way of formal order. 

///

Old Date New Date

Hearing on Army’s August 1, 2006 August 25, 2006

Pending Hearing

Pretrial Conference August 4, 2006 Sept. 6, 2006 

@8:45 a.m. 

(LJO)

Case 1:00-cv-05176-LJO Document 78 Filed 07/17/06 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 3

Trial Sept. 5, 2006 Oct. 10, 2006

@9:00 a.m. NEW

DATE BECAUSE

OCT. 9, 2006 IS

FEDERAL

HOLIDAY.

Dated: July 14, 2006. July 14, 2006

Respectfully submitted,

William J. Smith McGREGOR W. SCOTT

& Associates United States Attorney

(As auth. 7/14/06)

__/s/ Shelley G. Bryant_ /s/ Brian W. Enos_______

SHELLEY G. BRYANT BRIAN W. ENOS

Attorneys for Attorneys for

Plaintiff Venette Marriner United States of America

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 17, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

66h44d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:00-cv-05176-LJO Document 78 Filed 07/17/06 Page 3 of 3