Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02769/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02769-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
City of Vallejo
Defendant
Jane Doe
Plaintiff
Eric Jensen
Defendant
Robert Nichelini
Defendant
John Roe
Plaintiff

Document Text:

McNAMARA, DODGE, NEY, BEATTY, SLATTERY, PFALZER, BORGES & BROTHERS LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW 

P.O. BOX 5288, WALNUT CREEK, CA 94596 

TELEPHONE: (925) 939-5330

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 

STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER CONTINUING 

EXPERT WITNESS DISCLOSURE DEADLINES - Case No. 

2:06-CV-02769-GEB-EFB 

 

JAMES V. FITZGERALD, III (State Bar No. 55632) 

NOAH G. BLECHMAN (State Bar No. 197167) 

MCNAMARA, DODGE, NEY, BEATTY, SLATTERY,

PFALZER, BORGES & BROTHERS LLP 

1211 Newell Avenue 

Post Office Box 5288 

Walnut Creek, CA 94596 

Telephone: (925) 939-5330 

Facsimile: (925) 939-0203 

Attorneys for Defendant 

City of Vallejo, and Robert Nichelini 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SACRAMENTO 

JOHN ROE and JANE DOE, 

 Plaintiffs, 

 vs. 

CITY OF VALLEJO, a municipal 

corporation; ROBERT NICHELINI, in his 

official capacity as Chief of Police for the 

City of Vallejo; ERIC JENSEN, in his 

individual and official capacity as a police 

officer for the City of Vallejo, 

 Defendants. 

Case No. 2:06-CV-02769-GEB-EFB 

STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER 

CONTINUING EXPERT WITNESS 

DISCLOSURE DEADLINES_____________

Judge: Hon. Garland E. Burrell, Jr. 

Trial Date: August 26, 2008 

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED between the parties that the dates currently set regarding 

Rule 26 expert disclosure per Your Honor’s March 7, 2007, Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order 

need to be continued for a period of time to allow the parties additional time to perform discovery 

to assist in such determination and to evaluate the need for the retention of any such experts. This 

matter was filed on December 1, 2006. Defendants answered the complaint on February 1, 2007. 

Though the parties jointly listed a proposed expert disclosure date of August 10, 2007, in 

the parties’ Joint Status Report filed March 5, 2007, and the Court set the date for Rule 26 expert 

disclosure for August 24, 2007, per the Court’s March 7, 2007, Status (Pretrial Scheduling) 

Case 2:06-cv-02769-GEB-EFB Document 17 Filed 07/24/07 Page 1 of 3
McNAMARA, DODGE, NEY, BEATTY, SLATTERY, PFALZER, BORGES & BROTHERS LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW 

P.O. BOX 5288, WALNUT CREEK, CA 94596 

TELEPHONE: (925) 939-5330

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 

STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER CONTINUING 

EXPERT WITNESS DISCLOSURE DEADLINES - Case No. 

2:06-CV-02769-GEB-EFB

2 

Order, the parties now realize that this Rule 26 expert disclosure deadline does not allow the 

parties sufficient time to properly and fully prepare their respective cases. Discovery in this 

matter has just begun per disclosures and written discovery in March and April. Further, due to 

the respective conflicts in relation to the work and summer vacation schedules of all counsel, the 

depositions of the Plaintiffs, previously noticed by Defendants for April and June of 2007, will 

now not likely occur until late June and into mid July. Considering the fact that the trial of this 

matter is not set to go forward until August 26, 2008, an expert discovery deadline one full year 

prior to trial and only five months into discovery is not reasonable nor feasible under the 

circumstances. Further, the close of all discovery is not set to occur until January 24, 2008. 

Therefore, the parties need additional time for discovery and the evaluation of any need for 

retention of experts and the disciplines of such needed experts. 

Good cause has been demonstrated by the parties and the currently set Rule 26 expert 

disclosure deadlines should be continued in the interests of substantial justice in this matter. As 

such, the parties propose the following new deadlines to amend the Court’s March 7, 2007, Status 

(Pretrial Scheduling) Order, which will not impact any other set deadlines per this order, as 

follows: 

Expert Witness Disclosure and Report Deadline November 16, 2007 

Rebuttal Expert Disclosure Deadline December 7, 2007 

IT IS SO AGREED. 

LAW OFFICES OF JOHN L. BURRIS

Dated: _______________, 2007 By: /s/ Burris, John L. 

 John L. Burris, Esq. 

 Adante D. Pointer, Esq. 

 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

Case 2:06-cv-02769-GEB-EFB Document 17 Filed 07/24/07 Page 2 of 3
McNAMARA, DODGE, NEY, BEATTY, SLATTERY, PFALZER, BORGES & BROTHERS LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW 

P.O. BOX 5288, WALNUT CREEK, CA 94596 

TELEPHONE: (925) 939-5330

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 

STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER CONTINUING 

EXPERT WITNESS DISCLOSURE DEADLINES - Case No. 

2:06-CV-02769-GEB-EFB

3 

Dated: _______________, 2007 MCNAMARA, DODGE, NEY, BEATTY, SLATTERY,

PFALZER, BORGES & BROTHERS LLP 

By: /s/ Fitzgerald, James V. 

James V. Fitzgerald, III 

Noah G. Blechman 

Attorneys for Defendants 

CITY OF VALLEJO and ROBERT NICHELINI 

 JONES & DYER

Dated: _______________, 2007 By: /s/ Jones, Mark 

 Mark Jones, Esq. 

 Attorney for Defendant ERIC JENSEN 

ORDER

The Court’s March 7, 2007, Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order, and the dates currently set 

for expert disclosure (pgs. 2:21-3:2 of the order) are hereby amended with the new dates listed 

below, as follows: 

Expert Witness Disclosure and Report Deadline November 16, 2007 

Rebuttal Expert Disclosure Deadline December 7, 2007 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: July 24, 2007 

By: 

Honorable Hon. Garland E. Burrell, Jr. 

United States District Court Judge 

Case 2:06-cv-02769-GEB-EFB Document 17 Filed 07/24/07 Page 3 of 3