Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-02056/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-02056-6/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
County of Kern
Defendant
Jane Doe
Plaintiff
Christopher Escobedo
Defendant
Gabriel Lopez
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-

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER

CHAIN | COHN | STILES

1731 CHESTER AVENUE

BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301

(661) 323-4000

CHAIN | COHN | STILES

David K. Cohn, Esq., SBN 68768 | dcohn@chainlaw.com

Neil K. Gehlawat, Esq., SBN 289388 | ngehlawat@chainlaw.com

1731 Chester Avenue

Bakersfield, CA 93301

Telephone: (661) 323-4000

Facsimile: (661) 324-1352

Attorneys for Plaintiff

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JANE DOE, individually,

Plaintiff,

v.

COUNTY OF KERN, a municipality; 

GABRIEL LOPEZ, an individual;

CHRISTOPHER ESCOBEDO, an 

individual; and DOES 1-10, inclusive,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:13-CV-02056-AWI-JLT

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO 

MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER

(Doc. 40)

WHEREAS, this matter has overlapping expert witnesses, parties, witnesses, and legal 

issues with the case entitled Lore Kaplan vs. County of Kern, Case No. 1:14-CV-00206-AWI-JLT.

WHEREAS, the deadline to disclose expert witnesses in the case of Lore Kaplan vs. 

County of Kern is December 7, 2015.

WHEREAS, the deadline to disclose expert witnesses in this matter is November 24, 2015.

THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by the parties, by and through their 

attorneys of record that the scheduled date in this matter for disclosure of expert witnesses

articulated in the scheduling conference order may be modified from November 24, 2015 to 

December 7, 2015.

Case 1:13-cv-02056-DAD-JLT Document 41 Filed 10/26/15 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

-2-

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER

CHAIN | COHN | STILES

1731 CHESTER AVENUE

BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301

(661) 323-4000

The parties all understand and agree that the proposed new dates are subject to 

modification by the court.

DATED: October ___, 2015 CHAIN | COHN | STILES

BY: ______________________________

 Neil K. Gehlawat

 Attorney for Plaintiff

DATED: October ___, 2015 THERESA A. GOLDNER, COUNTY COUNSEL

BY: ______________________________

 Judith M. Denny

 Attorney for Defendant, COUNTY OF KERN

DATED: October ___, 2015 ROBINSON & KELLAR

BY: ______________________________

 Oliver U. Robinson

 Attorney for Defendant, GABRIEL LOPEZ

ORDER

Based upon the stipulation of the counsel, the Court GRANTS the stipulation to amend the 

scheduling order as follows:

1. All experts SHALL be disclosed no later than December 7, 2015. Any rebuttal 

experts SHALL be disclosed no later than January 4, 2016. All discovery related to experts 

SHALL be completed no later than February 1, 2016.

2. Absolutely no other modifications to the case schedule are authorized and no 

further modifications to the case schedule are contemplated. Counsel are reminded that the Court 

previously instructed them to complete discovery within the deadlines that were set originally. 

(Doc. 34) Despite this, counsel have submitted two stipulations modifying the case schedule. 

(Doc. 36; Doc. 40) Any further stipulations will be summarily denied absent a showing of 

Case 1:13-cv-02056-DAD-JLT Document 41 Filed 10/26/15 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

-3-

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER

CHAIN | COHN | STILES

1731 CHESTER AVENUE

BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301

(661) 323-4000

exceptional good cause.1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 26, 2015 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

1 The fact that the companion case has different case deadlines would not be considered exceptional good cause to amend 

the case schedule any further. The cases have different deadlines because the parties requested this in their joint 

scheduling conference statements. (Compare Doc. 37 with Doc. 18 filed in Kaplan v. County of Kern, Case No. 1:13-cv02056 AWI JLT.)

Case 1:13-cv-02056-DAD-JLT Document 41 Filed 10/26/15 Page 3 of 3