From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Williams v. Miller

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jul 5, 2012
Case No. 2:11-CV-01844-GEB-DAD (E.D. Cal. Jul. 5, 2012)

Opinion

Case No. 2:11-CV-01844-GEB-DAD

07-05-2012

DIANA WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. PAMELA MILLER, in her individual capacity, and YOLO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT AND SOCIAL SERVICES Defendants.

CHARLETON S. PEARSE, SBN 122491 ADAM M. AMBROZY, SBN 258237 BENJAMIN D. ORAM, SBN 269453 LENAHAN, LEE, SLATER & PEARSE, LLP Attorneys for Defendants COUNTY OF YOLO DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT AND SOCIAL SERVICES and PAMELA MILLER MARY -ALICE COLEMAN, SBN 98365 THOMS B. GILL, SBN 146275 LAW OFFICE OF MARY-ALICE COLEMAN Attorneys for Plaintiff DIANA WILLIAMS


CHARLETON S. PEARSE, SBN 122491

ADAM M. AMBROZY, SBN 258237

BENJAMIN D. ORAM, SBN 269453

LENAHAN, LEE, SLATER & PEARSE, LLP

Attorneys for Defendants

COUNTY OF YOLO DEPARTMENT OF

EMPLOYMENT AND SOCIAL SERVICES and

PAMELA MILLER

MARY -ALICE COLEMAN, SBN 98365

THOMS B. GILL, SBN 146275

LAW OFFICE OF MARY-ALICE COLEMAN

Attorneys for Plaintiff

DIANA WILLIAMS

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]

ORDER REGARDING EXTENSION OF

TIME FOR EXPERT WITNESS

DISCLOSURE DATES

In order to facilitate continuing discovery and evaluation of the case, Plaintiff DIANA WILLIAMS, (hereinafter referred to as "Plaintiff"), and Defendants, PAMELA MILLER AND COUNTY OF YOLO DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT AND SOCIAL SERVICES (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Defendants") hereby stipulate and seek an order of the Court modifying the Court's October 6, 2011 scheduling order as follows:

(1) Both parties agree to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B) and (C)'s initial expert witness disclosure requirements on or before February 4, 2013 with any contradictory and/or rebuttal expert disclosure authorized under Rule 26(a)(2)(D)(ii) on or before March 4, 2013;
(2) All other dates contained within the October 6, 2011 scheduling order are to remain as ordered and are unmodified, altered, or changed.

This Stipulation may be executed in counter-part and faxed and/or authorized electronic signature shall be deemed the same as an original execution.

LENAHAN, LEE, SLATER & PEARSE, LLP

By: __________

CHARLETON S. PEARSE

Attorneys for Defendant,

COUNTY OF YOLO and PAMELA MILLER

LAW OFFICE OF MARY-ALICE COLEMAN

By: __________

THOMAS B. GILL

Attorneys for Plaintiff,

DIANA WILLIAMS

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

(1) Both parties agree to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B) and (C)'s initial expert witness disclosure requirements on or before February 4, 2013 with any contradictory and/or rebuttal expert disclosure authorized under Rule 26(a)(2)(D)(ii) on or before March 4, 2013;
(2) All other dates contained within the October 6, 2011 scheduling order are to remain as ordered and are unmodified, altered, or changed.

____________________

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Williams v. Miller

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jul 5, 2012
Case No. 2:11-CV-01844-GEB-DAD (E.D. Cal. Jul. 5, 2012)
Case details for

Williams v. Miller

Case Details

Full title:DIANA WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. PAMELA MILLER, in her individual capacity…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Jul 5, 2012

Citations

Case No. 2:11-CV-01844-GEB-DAD (E.D. Cal. Jul. 5, 2012)