UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (San Francisco)
October 31, 2011
MEAGAN BUCKHOLTZ, PERSONALLY,
SANTA CLARA COUNTY, ET AL. DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge: Judge Susan Illston
MIGUEL MARQUEZ, County Counsel (S.B. #184621) MARK F. BERNAL, Deputy County Counsel (S.B. #173923) OFFICE OF THE COUNTY COUNSEL 70 West Hedding, East Wing, 9th Floor San Jose, California 95110-1770 Telephone: (408) 299-5900 Facsimile: (408) 292-7240 Attorneys for Defendants COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA (ALSO SUED ERRONEOUSLY HEREIN AS "SANTA CLARA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES" AND "DEPARTMENT OF FAMILIES AND CHILDREN SERVICES AGENCY"), SUSAN WARE, KAREN HEGGIE, DONALD GAGE, LIZ KNISS, MICHAEL ROSSI, FRAN ALLEN, JONATHAN WEINBERG, WILL LIGHTBOURNE, KATHLEEN MILES, IZI CHAN, PATRICIA GEISICK, KEN BORELLI, AND JEAN PLATNER
SUPPLEMENTAL CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
Date: November 4, 2011 Time: 3:00 p.m.
Dept.: Crtrm 10, 19th Floor
Pursuant to Civil L.R. 16-10(d), the Parties in the above-entitled action certify that they 24 did meet and confer prior to the subsequent case management conference scheduled in this case. 25 The Parties jointly submit this Supplemental Case Management Statement and Proposed Order 26 Continuing Case Management Conference and request the Court to adopt it as a 27 Supplemental Case Management Order in this case.
DESCRIPTION OF SUBSEQUENT CASE DEVELOPMENTS
The following progress or changes have occurred since the last case management 3 statement filed by the parties, and necessitate a further continuance of the currently scheduled 4 conference: 5
1. This Court continued the prior Case Management Conferences because there were 6 delays in the Santa Clara County Superior Court's release of Plaintiff's Child Dependency 7 records pursuant to multiple Welfare & Institutions Code §827 petitions. Once those records 8 were produced, the Court continued the case management conference to allow the parties time 9 to review those voluminous records, depose Plaintiff, and complete summary judgment briefing.
2. Pro Se Plaintiff's school and work schedules limited her availability for deposition.
On October 3, 2011, the County noticed Plaintiff's deposition for October 28, 2011. On 12 October 25, 2011, Plaintiff informed the County that she retained an attorney to represent her 13 for purposes of the deposition only who was not available on October 28, 2011. As a result of 14 further meet and confer efforts and accommodations to the new attorney's trial schedule, the 15 County agreed to re-notice the deposition for November 22, 2011. This will delay summary 16 judgment efforts and realistically places the completion of briefing into early 2012.
3. The Parties respectfully request that the Subsequent Case Management Conference 18 be continued approximately 90 days to allow the parties to complete Plaintiff's deposition and 19 brief the summary judgment motion. It is anticipated that the briefing can be completed within 20 that time period.
The Parties respectfully request the Court to make the following Supplemental Case Management Order:
The subsequent case management conference scheduled for 3:00 pm on November 4, 2011, in Courtroom 10 be continued to 3:00 pm on February 3, 2012, in Courtroom 10.
I hereby attest that I have on file the holograph signature indicated by a "conformed" 4 signature (/S/) within this e-filed document.
The subsequent case management conference scheduled for 3:00 pm on November 4, 2011, in Courtroom 10 is continued to 3:00 pm on February 3, 2012, in Courtroom 10.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Honorable Susan Illston United States District Court Judge
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.