Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Kulya v. City and County of San Francisco

UNITED STATES DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION


March 27, 2008

GEORGIY KULYA, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS,
v.
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Jeffrey S. White United States District Judge

STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND PRE-TRIAL DATES; DECLARATION OF ELLEN SHAPIRO IN SUPPORT OF STIPULATION; [PROPOSED] ORDER

The court is aware that counsel have had to ask a couple of times now for a continuance of cut-off dates, which the court has agreed to, and which agreement is appreciated by counsel.

Counsel are again asking for consideration in continuing the trial date, and associated cut-off dates, for the reasons as follows.

A late discovered compilation of documents (over 1000 pages) relevant to the policies, practice, and procedures of the City and County of San Francisco, and emergency response social work (three of the defendants herein are emergency response social workers), was produced to plaintiffs counsel for the first time on March 14th, 2008. The existence of this compilation was unknown to defendants' counsel, and came up in a conversation with the Person Most Knowledgeable approximately one week before the PMK's scheduled deposition on March 14th, 2008. The compilation had to be located, produced to defendant's counsel, then copied and produced to plaintiffs' counsel. This was an unanticipated delay, through no fault of either counsel, and it appears an innocent oversight on the part of the Dept. of Children's & Family Services.

mentioned above, whose deposition was cancelled in light of needing to review the materials), and one other defendant who is on an extended vacation. Also driving this request in significant part is that an expert who is retained by the defendants, is completely unavailable during the period of time for which the trial is currently set, as explained in the accompanying Declaration of Ellen Shapiro.

depositions calendared, and to exchange some declarations that might avoid the need to re-take depositions of three of the social worker defendants whose involvement in this case, and the 19 nature of their work generally, are related to the late discovered compilation discussed hereinabove, which is a manual regarding the performance of that nature of work.

court order same:

In addition, plaintiff has two more depositions to complete (one of which is the PMK The court is apprised that counsel are working together cooperatively to get the final two Based on the foregoing, the parties hereby stipulate and agree as follows, and ask that this

1. The parties respectfully request that the Court continue trial of this matter from September 15, 2008 to November 17, 2008, and continue all other pre-trial dates a corresponding amount of time, such that all bear the same relationship to the trial date as apply per the currently scheduled trial date.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

Dated: 03/26/2008

DECLARATION OF ELLEN SHAPIRO IN SUPPORT OF STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

I, ELLEN SHAPIRO, declare:

1. I am an attorney licensed to practice before this Court, am a Deputy City Attorney for the City and County of San Francisco, and am one of the attorneys of record for all defendants in this matter. I have personal knowledge of the facts stated in this Declaration. I could and would testify competently if called as a witness.

public child protective services social work practices.

workers, employed by public social service agencies, in the evaluation of and response to allegations of child abuse; and (2) whether the social worker defendants in this case met the relevant standards 13 of practice.

4. On February 11, 2008 the above-mentioned expert contacted me to say that she had just learned of a personal conflict that now made it impossible to honor the earlier commitment, and she referred me to a colleague.

matter.

despite previous assurances that this assignment would not conflict with other matters, her other responsibilities had changed and she was declining to consult further.

continuance subject to Court approval. He graciously did so.

contacted would become unavailable to work on this case, and therefore respectfully request that the

2. On February 7, 2008 I received a commitment to consult in this matter from an expert in

3. Of central importance in this case are (1) the standards of practice required of social

5. On February 14, 2008, the first proposed expert's colleague agreed to consult in this

6. On a date between March 17 and March 20, I learned from the first person' colleague that,

7. Because of the above, I contacted counsel for plaintiff to ask that he agree to a trial

8. I did not have reason to know or suspect that the above-mentioned consultants whom I Court accept the parties' stipulation to continue trial of this matter.

declaration was executed on March 26, 2008 at San Francisco, California.

Shapiro, and good cause appearing therefor, it is November 17, 2008, and that all pre-trial deadlines also be continued for nine weeks.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that this ______________________, 2008.

ELLEN SHAPIRO

ORDER

The Court having reviewed the above stipulation of the parties and declaration of Ellen

ORDERED that trial of this matter be and is hereby continued from September 15, 2008 to

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the pre-trial conference in this matter be held on October 27.

20080327

© 1992-2008 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.