Opinion
1:23-cv-00500-JLT-SKO 1:24-cv-00150-JLT-SKO)
09-04-2024
A.G., a minor, by and through her guardian ad litem Johana Yolanda Corral Galvan, individually and as co-successor in interest to Decedent Francisco Ponce, Jr.; F.G., a minor, by and through her guardian ad litem Johana Yolanda Corral Galvan, individually and as co-successor in interest to Decedent Francisco Ponce, Jr.; individually, Plaintiffs, v. COUNTY OF TULARE, a public entity; Correctional Deputy Trainee JOSE SANCHEZ PEREZ; Correctional Deputy JAMES DILLON; Correctional Deputy RODRIGO DEOCHOA; WELLPATH, LLC, a Delaware Corporation; ANDREW P. HO, MD; ALLA LIBERSTEIN, MD; and DOES 7-50, jointly and severally, Defendants.
T. Kennedy Helm, IV (SBN 282319) HELM LAW OFFICE, PC Attorney for Plaintiffs A.G. and F.G., by and through their guardian ad litem, Johana Yolanda Corral Galvan Kevin G. Little (SBN 149818) Michelle L. Tostenrude (SBN 290121) LAW OFFICE OF KEVIN G. LITTLE Attorneys for Plaintiff Rosa Madrid Gary L. Logan (SBN 90558) Alan J. Mish (SBN 105771 LAW OFFICES OF LEBEAU • THELEN, LLP Attorneys for Defendants County of Tulare, Jose Sanchez Perez, James Dillon, and Rodrigo DeOchoa Lindsey M. Romano (SBN 337600) Kendra N. Stark (PRO HAC VICE) GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP Attorneys for Defendants Wellpath, LLC and Alla Liberstein, M.D. Peter G. Bertling (SBN 121602) Jemma Allison Parker Saunders (SBN 227962) BERTLING LAW GROUP Attorneys for Defendant Andrew P. Ho, M.D.
T. Kennedy Helm, IV (SBN 282319)
HELM LAW OFFICE, PC
Attorney for Plaintiffs A.G. and F.G., by and through their guardian ad litem, Johana Yolanda Corral Galvan
Kevin G. Little (SBN 149818)
Michelle L. Tostenrude (SBN 290121)
LAW OFFICE OF KEVIN G. LITTLE
Attorneys for Plaintiff Rosa Madrid
Gary L. Logan (SBN 90558)
Alan J. Mish (SBN 105771
LAW OFFICES OF LEBEAU • THELEN, LLP
Attorneys for Defendants County of Tulare, Jose Sanchez Perez, James Dillon, and Rodrigo DeOchoa
Lindsey M. Romano (SBN 337600)
Kendra N. Stark (PRO HAC VICE)
GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP
Attorneys for Defendants Wellpath, LLC and Alla Liberstein, M.D.
Peter G. Bertling (SBN 121602)
Jemma Allison Parker Saunders (SBN 227962)
BERTLING LAW GROUP
Attorneys for Defendant Andrew P. Ho, M.D.
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER (DOC. 56)
SHEILA K. OBERTO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiffs A.G. and F.G., by and through their counsel, T. Kennedy Helm, IV, of Helm Law Office, PC; Plaintiff Rosa Madrid, by and through her counsel, Kevin G. Little and Michelle L. Tostenrude of the Law Office of Kevin G. Little; Defendants County of Tulare, Jose Sanchez Perez, James Dillon, and Rodrigo DeOchoa, by and through their counsel, Gary L. Logan, of Lebeau Thelen, LLP; Defendants Wellpath, LLC and Alla Liberstein, M.D., by and through their counsel Lindsey M. Romano and Kendra N. Stark of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP; and Defendant Andrew P. Ho, M.D., by and through his counsel Peter G. Bertling and Jemma Parker Saunders of Bertling Law Group; hereby respectfully stipulate and request as follows:
RECITALS
A. When an act must be done within a specified time, the Court may, for good cause, extend the time with or without motion if the court acts, or a request is made, before the original time expires. Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b)(1)(A). With respect to an order setting forth the Court's pretrial schedule, the “court may modify the pretrial schedule ‘if it cannot be reasonably met despite the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.'” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). The Parties respectfully submit that good cause exists to continue the deadline for completion of non-expert (fact) discovery and successive deadlines.
B. Currently, the cutoff for non-expert (fact) discovery is November 6, 2024. ECF No. 37.
C. Since the last modification of the scheduling order on March 5, 2024, the Parties have made substantial progress in discovery and amendment of the pleadings. On March 7, 2025, Plaintiffs A.G. and F.G. served responses to the County Defendants' Rule 33 Interrogatories and Rule 34 Requests; and on April 4, 2024, the County Defendants served responses to Plaintiffs A.G.'s and F.G's Rule 34 requests. Meanwhile, counsel for Plaintiffs A.G. and F.G. and counsel for Defendants Wellpath, LLC; Liberstein; and Ho met and conferred regarding perceived deficiencies in the First Amended Complaint and successfully avoided motion practice by stipulating to Plaintiffs' filing of a Second Amended Complaint. Accordingly, on May 6, 2024, Plaintiffs obtained leave from this
Court to file a Second Amended Complaint, ECF No. 48, which Plaintiffs filed that day. ECF No. 49. On May 9, 2024, the County Defendants answered the Second Amended Complaint. ECF No. 50. On May 20, 2024, Defendant Ho, who the same day sought and received the Court's consent for substitution of counsel, ECF Nos. 51-52, answered the Second Amended Complaint, ECF No. 53, as did Defendants Wellpath, LLC, and Liberstein. ECF No. 54.
D. In addition to amending the pleadings while avoiding motion practice, the Parties have also continued to engage in written discovery. Plaintiffs A.G. and F.G. have provided responses and responsive documents to the County Defendants' requests for production of documents, most recently on July 19, 2024, and have served requests for production of documents on the County Defendants, the Wellpath Defendants, and Defendant Ho, and Plaintiffs A.G. and F.G.
A. Nevertheless, counsel for all Plaintiffs; counsel for the Tulare County Defendants; counsel for Defendants Wellpath, LLC and Liberstein; and counsel for Defendant Ho, do not believe that fact discovery can be completed by the current deadline of November 6, 2024, due to the impacted schedules of the Parties' counsel due to deadlines in earlier-filed matters between now and then. First, counsel for Defendant Ho, who substituted into this case on May 20, 2024 and obtained the case file last month, has trials in September and October 2024; specifically, on September 21, 2024 in Trejo v. County of Imperial, et al., No. 20-cv-01465-LAB-MSB (S.D. Cal.), and on October 22, 2024 in the matter of Snider v. County of Merced, No. 1:20-cv-00409-JLT-SAB (E.D. Cal.). Second, counsel for Plaintiffs A.G. and F.G must take depositions during September and October 2024 in Mackie v. County of Santa Cruz, et al., No. 4:19-cv-02096-YGR (N.D. Cal.) (non-fatal shooting case); and K.C. v. Alameda County, et al., No. 4:22-cv-01817-DMR (N.D. Cal.) (in-custody death case); and must also complete fact-discovery by October 7, 2024 in both Webb v. County of San Bernardino, et al., No. 5:22-cv-01448-SSS-SP (C.D. Cal.) (incustody death case) and in D.B., et al. v. City of Stockton, et al., No. 2:21-cv-02154 (E.D.
Cal.) (fatal police shooting case); oppose a motion for summary judgment on October 9, 2024 in Garcia v. County of Stanislaus, et al., No. 1:21-cv-00331-MCE-SCR (E.D. Cal.) (excessive-force case); complete expert disclosures by October 14, 2024 in Webb; complete rebuttal expert disclosures by October 25, 2024 in Servin v. San Joaquin County, et al., No. 2:20-cv-02445-WBS-CSK (E.D. Cal.) (excessive-force case); and complete rebuttal expert disclosures by October 28, 2024 in Webb.
B. Given the foregoing; as well as the desire of counsel for the Parties to be able to exercise professional courtesies by reasonably accommodating the schedules of the deponents and counsel as much as is reasonably possible, and the need to set depositions on mutually available dates, including the anticipated difficulties with doing this-given the number of counsel's schedules and potential depositions involved-the undersigned counsel reasonably estimate the need for, and, thus, respectfully request, that an additional approximately 90 days be added to the deadline for the cutoff of fact discovery.
C. Therefore, the Parties agree that a stipulated extension of approximately 90 days of the cutoff for fact discovery will allow the Parties to complete fact discovery.
D. The Parties further agree that such a stipulated extension of 90 days of the cutoff for fact discovery will necessitate an approximate 90-day extension of each of the remaining pretrial dates, and of the trial date.
STIPULATIONS
Given the foregoing, and the current approaching non-expert discovery cutoff of November 6, 2024 (ECF No. 37), the Parties respectfully submit that good cause exists to continue the nonexpert discovery cutoff and the subsequent case deadlines by approximately 90 days each:
Matter
Current Deadline (ECF No. 37)
New Deadline
Non-Expert Discovery Cutoff
November 6, 2024
February 5, 2025
Expert Disclosures
December 11, 2024
March 12, 2025
Rebuttal Expert Disclosures
January 15, 2025
April 16, 2025
Expert Discovery Cutoff
February 17, 2025
May 19, 2025
Non-Dispositive Motion Deadline-Filing
March 17, 2025
June 17, 2025
Non-Dispositive Motion Deadline-Hearing
April 9, 2025
July 9, 2025
Dispositive Motion Deadline-Hearing
April 21, 2025
July 21, 2025
Deadline to Provide Proposed Settlement Conference Dates:
May 14, 2025
August 13, 2025
Pre-Trial Conference
June 16, 2025 at 1:30 p.m.
September 15, 2025 at 1:30 p.m.
Trial
August 12, 2025 at 8:30 a.m.
November 11, 2025, at 8:30 a.m.
IT IS SO STIPULATED, THROUGH COUNSEL OF RECORD.
*Pursuant to Local Rule 131(e), Messrs. Logan and Little, and Mses. Stark and Saunders each consented that this document be filed by CM/ECF.
ORDER
The Court, having considered the Parties' stipulation (Doc. 56), and good cause appearing, rules as follows:
The Court finds that the Parties have shown good cause for the relief their Stipulation requests. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the existing Scheduling Order (Doc. 37) is MODIFIED as follows:
Matter
Current Deadline
New Deadline
Non-Expert Discovery Cutoff
November 6, 2024
February 5, 2025
Expert Disclosures
December 11, 2024
March 12, 2025
Rebuttal Expert Disclosures
January 15, 2025
April 16, 2025
Expert Discovery Cutoff
February 17, 2025
May 19, 2025
Non-Dispositive Motion Deadline-Filing
June 17, 2025
Non-Dispositive Motion Deadline-Hearing
April 9, 2025
Dispositive Motion Deadline - Filing
March 17, 2025
Dispositive Motion Deadline-Hearing
April 21, 2025
July 21, 2025
Deadline to Provide Proposed Settlement Conference Dates:
May 14, 2025
August 20, 2025, or 90 days before trial, whichever is later
Pre-Trial Conference
June 16, 2025 at 1:30 p.m.
September 15, 2025 at 1:30 p.m.
Trial
August 12, 2025 at 8:30 a.m.
This deadline was not specified in the parties' March 5, 2024, Scheduling Order (see Doc. 37) but is set in accordance with this Court's Local Rules. See E.D. Cal. L.R. 230.
This date has been adjusted in accordance with this Court's Local Rules. See E.D. Cal. L.R. 230.
This deadline was not specified in the parties' stipulation (see Doc. 56) but is set in accordance with this Court's Local Rules. See E.D. Cal. L.R. 230.
This date has been adjusted due to Court holiday.
IT IS SO ORDERED.