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.

Koopen v. United States

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SACRAMENTO DIVISION


December 2, 2009

JEFFREY KOOPEN, AN INCOMPETENT PERSON, BY AND THROUGH HIS GUARDIAN AD LITEM JACOBUS KOOPEN, PLAINTIFF,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Garland E. Burrell, Jr. United States District Judge

STIPULATION AND ORDER CONTINUING HEARING ON MOTION AND CHANGING DISCOVERY DATES

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties hereto through their respective counsel that the hearing on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss or for Summary Judgment be continued to 25 January 2010. Plaintiff shall until 8 January 2010 to respond, and Defendant shall have until 18 January 2010 to file a reply, if it so desires.

IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED by and between the parties hereto through their respective attorneys of record that having met and conferred regarding the respective calendars of counsel that the Scheduling Order shall be amended as follows:

1. Disclosure of experts witnesses is 1 May 2010;

2. Fact and Expert discovery cutoff date is 1 April 2010; All other dates shall remain as currently set. This request is submitted jointly on behalf of plaintiff's counsel and defendants' counsel. Plaintiff's counsel has been involved almost exclusively in completing discovery in the case of Smith, et al. v. Spencer, et al., United States Eastern District of California case number 1:07-CV-00860-OWW-GSA, for over 30 days. This matter has required in excess of 25 depositions, and discovery was originally set to close on 30 November 2009, since extended to 11 December 2009 by stipulation and order. Defendant's motion requires extensive research by counsel for plaintiff, as well as counter-declarations, and potentially expert witness declarations. Defendant's motion was filed during the final flurry of discovery, and plaintiff's counsel was simply unable to respond. Defense counsel had written a letter regarding his position, but plaintiff's counsel had been unable to fully analyze it due to the discovery in the Smith case. Counsel for defendant was concerned that extensive discovery should not be allowed during the pendency of the motion for reasons of time and costs, and, upon analysis, counsel for plaintiff concurs. Therefore, the parties have agreed that limited, if any discovery, will be conducted prior to this Court's decision on the motion. It is for this reason that the discovery dates have been extended.

Dated: December 1, 2009

BOSKOVICH & APPLETON ANTHONY BOSKOVICH, Attorney for Plaintiff

Dated: December 2, 2009

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY Todd A. Pickles Attorney for Defendant

IT IS ORDERED:

In light of the parties' stipulation, the motion is un-submitted and the hearing on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss or for Summary Judgment si scheduled on 25 January 2010 at 9:00 A.M. Plaintiff shall until 8 January 2010 to respond, and Defendant shall have until 18 January 2010 to file a reply, if it so desires.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED:

The Scheduling Order shall be amended as follows:

1. Disclosure of experts witnesses is 1 May 2010;

2. Fact and Expert discovery cutoff date is 1 April 2010; All other dates shall remain as currently set.

20091202

© 1992-2009 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.