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.

Thomas Ray Woodson v. J. Rodriguez

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION


January 13, 2011

THOMAS RAY WOODSON, PLAINTIFF,
v.
J. RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Claudia Wilken United States District Court Judge

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING DISCOVERY CUT-OFF FOR DEPOSITIONS AND EXPERT WITNESSES

Woodson and counsel for Defendants J. Rodriguez, E. Camarena, J. Parra, D. Vega, and 4 Pursuant to Northern District Local Rules 7-12 and 16-2, counsel for Plaintiff Thomas R.Sergeant Kircher hereby submit this Stipulation and Proposed Order to extend the fact discovery 5 cut-off for the purpose of taking the depositions of Defendant Sergeant Kircher, Inmate Victor Roldan, and the FRCP 30(b)(6) deposition of Salinas Valley State Prison, and to extend the 7 deadlines for the expert reports, expert rebuttal reports, and the expert discovery cut-off.stipulated order adopted by this Court on December 21, 2010 (Dkt.100).

further extend the discovery deadlines to accommodate depositions that Plaintiff contends were dependent on the outstanding discovery (Dkt. 95-97).

Plaintiff's motion without prejudice and directed the parties to follow her standing order regarding discovery disputes (Dkt. 103).

the motion, Plaintiff has determined that another limited extension of the discovery cut-off is necessary awaiting production of relevant documents and in light of scheduling conflicts.

Defendants disagree that there are any outstanding documents that warrant further delay of discovery, but do not oppose a limited extension.

with the institution where he is housed.

Borges & Brothers LLP, counsel for the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Furthermore, Plaintiff avers that the expert witnesses Plaintiff retains will not be able to complete the expert report by the current deadline without production of outstanding discovery by 28 counsel for Defendants. Defendants do not agree that there are any outstanding document The Parties previously agreed to extend the case management dates, as set forth in the On December 20, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel outstanding discovery and to The Court referred the December 20 motion to Magistrate Judge Beeler, who denied After meeting and conferring on January 6, 2011 regarding the discovery issues raised in Counsel for Plaintiff is attempting to schedule the deposition of Inmate Victor Roldan The Parties are also coordinating with the law firm of McNamara, Ney, Beatty, Slattery,("CDCR"), to schedule the 30(b)(6) deposition of Salinas Valley State Prison.

requests that should affect the expert discovery deadline, but have no objection to a limited extension of expert discovery.respective counsel, that: 2011, for the sole purpose of taking the depositions of Sergeant Kircher, Inmate Victor Roldan, and the 30(b)(6) deposition of Salinas Valley State Prison.

2. The case management dates related to expert witnesses are to be reset as follows:

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by the Parties, by and through their 1. The fact discovery cut-off shall be extended from January 14, 2011, to January 26, Event Current Deadline Stipulated Deadline Expert disclosures (names) 1/14/11 Same Expert reports 1/14/11 1/28/11 Expert discovery cut-off 2/18/11 3/4/11

3. None of the other case management dates are altered by this stipulation.

4. If Inmate Roldan's deposition is not completed within the applicable deadline, the parties stipulate that his testimony will not be offered at trial, either live or by declaration. This 19 stipulation does not impact the ability of the parties to seek admission of testimony (live or by 20 declaration) from Inmate Flores or any other witnesses.

5. If Plaintiff designates an expert witness to testify regarding Plaintiff's alleged psychological distress or psychological problems (apart from physical pain and suffering) purportedly caused by the incident at issue in this case, Defendants shall have an opportunity to conduct a Rule 35 mental examination of Plaintiff.

Expert rebuttal reports 2/1/11 2/15/11

Respectfully Submitted,

MATTHEW I. KREEGER DANIEL P. MUINO J. MANENA BISHOP JANELLE J. SAHOURIA JOE K. KANADA MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP By: /s/Daniel P. Muino DANIEL P. MUINO Attorneys for Plaintiff THOMAS RAY WOODSON

Dated: January 13, 2011

JOSE A. ZELIDON-ZEPEDA NEAH HUYNH CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE By: /s/Jose A. Zelidon-Zepeda JOSE A. ZELIDON-ZEPEDA Attorneys for Defendants J. RODRIGUEZ, E. CAMARENA, J. PARRA, D. VEGA, AND SERGEANT

KIRCHER

I, Daniel P. Muino, am the ECF User whose ID and password are being used to file this Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Extending Discovery Cut-off for Depositions and Expert Witnesses. In compliance with General Order 45, X.B., I hereby attest that Jose A. Zelidon Zepeda has concurred in this filing.

PURSUANT TO THE PARTIES' STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

1/14/2011

20110113

© 1992-2011 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.