AMENDED JOINT STIPULATION AND
ORDER TO MODIFY STATUS TRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER
Pursuant to Civ. L.R. 143 and 144,, the parties to the above-captioned action, by and through their undersigned counsel of record, hereby request that this Court approve the following Stipulation to modify the Status (Pre-trial) Scheduling Order and Trial Date so that the parties may complete percipient witness discovery and fully prepare this case for trial.
CURRENT DATE NEW DATE Close of Discovery: 6/27/11 9/26/11
Last day for Plaintiff's Expert Disclosure 2/7/11 2/7/11
Last Day for Defendant's Expert Disclosure 3/7/11 3/7/11
Last Day to File Dispositive Motions 8/3/11 11/2/11
Last Day to Hear Dispositive Motions 9/7/11 at 9:30 a.m. 12/7/11 at 9:30 a.m. Pre-trial Conference 11/11/11 at 3:00 p.m. 2/10/12 at 3:00 p.m. Last Day to File Join Pre-Trial Statement 11/4/11 2/3/12 Trial Date 12/19/11 9:30 a.m. 3/19/12 at 9:30 a.m.
GOOD CAUSE FOR THIS REQUESTED ORDER EXISTS FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:
1. On July 23, 2010 Plaintiff E.B. Keyes filed a First Amended Complaint naming for the first time Kelly Services Inc. as a Defendant. On September 24, 2010 Defendant Kelly Services filed a motion to dismiss which was heard on November 3, 2010. The Court dismissed Defendant Kelly at the hearing on November 3, 2010. Therefore, at this time all relevant parties have either been dismissed or answered Plaintiff's Complaint. While both the General Services Administration and Kelly Services have been dismissed from the matter, the parties have had to continue to meet and confer with both in an attempt to schedule important witness and person most knowledgeable depositions.
2. On January 21, 2011 Plaintiff sent a subpoena and notice of deposition to Kelly Services Inc. regarding the deposition and records request of the Person Most Knowledgeable in regards to the events surrounding the above captioned matter. After meeting and conferring regarding the subpoena, Plaintiff revised his Subpoena on February 2, 2011 setting a deposition date of March 4 2011. On receipt of the PMK Subpoena, Plaintiff and counsel for Kelly Services Inc., have diligently met and conferred regarding Kelly Services search for the correct PMK. On February 25, 2011 counsel for Kelly Services informed Plaintiff that they had only just found the correct PMK but would not be able to produce the PMK on March 4, 2011. Efforts to meet and confer regarding scheduling with both Counsel for Kelly Services and Counsel for Fed Ex proved to be difficult as Mr. Ferron and the PMK are traveling from out of state. However, despite the difficulty in scheduling the PMK's deposition is currently set for June 16, 2011.
3. Plaintiff has diligently met and conferred with Defense Counsel for FedEx Ground Packaging Systems regarding delays in production of documentation that is necessary and relevant to any and all depositions. Plaintiff had depositions set and scheduled for February 21, 2011 and February 23, 2011 of relevant Fed Ex fact witnesses however, those depositions were not able to go forward due to scheduling conflicts as well as Defendant Fed Ex's delay in producing relevant documentation prior to the date of deposition. One of the witnesses Ms. Angela Acmoody who is crucial to this matter was re-set for Deposition on Monday June 13, 2011. On June 10, 2011 Fed Ex Defense counsel informed Plaintiff that this deposition would not be able to proceed as currently scheduled. Currently the parties have been meeting and conferring on new dates for Ms. Acmoody's deposition and Defendant has stated that relevant documents that have yet to be produced will be produced prior to the Deposition of Angela Acmoody. Ms. Acmoody's deposition is essential to this litigation as it is alleged that she participated in the decision to terminate Plaintiff.
4. Further, Counsel for Defendant Fed Ex has agreed to accept service of Subpoena's for two witnesses that Plaintiff was informed are employed by a different FedEx company which is also a subsidiary of the FedEx Corp. parent company. Subpoena's for each individual have been served and the Parties are meeting and conferring regarding dates for both depositions.
5. Beginning in April of this year Plaintiff contacted the United States Attorney General's Office in an attempt to set depositions of Christine Coley and other relevant fact witnesses that were employed by or were former employees of the United States. After corresponding with Earlene Gordon of the U.S. Attorney General's Office, Plaintiff was informed that a Touhy Request and Subpoenas were necessary in order to take the deposition of United States employees or former employees. Since first making contact with Ms. Gordon, Plaintiff has also placed calls or emails to The Office of the Solicitor General as well as the Washington D.C. Office of the General Services Administration in an attempt to ensure that the right person was served with the Touhy Request and Subpoenas.
On May 13, 2011 Plaintiff sent a Touhy Request and four subpoenas of relevant current and former GSA employees who worked closely with the Plaintiff. The Touhy request and corresponding subpoenas were sent to the General Services Administration Office of the Inspector General's Washington D.C.; General Services Administration Office of the Inspector General's San Francisco; General Services Administration Pacific Rim Region and; the General Services Administration Office where the subpoenaed individuals worked. A few weeks later Plaintiff received correspondence from the General Service Administration informing him that the Touhy Request and Subpoenas had been served upon the ...