The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Charles R. Breyer United States District Judge
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING DEADLINE TO COMPLETE MEDIATION
Date Action Filed: October 11, 2011
Plaintiff Bulmaro Orozco and Defendant Tesoro Refining and Marketing Company, 25 collectively "the Parties", by and through their counsel, stipulate and agree as follows: 26
1. WHEREAS, this action was filed on October 11, 2011.
2. WHEREAS, the Court held an initial Case Management Conference ("CMC") on March 16, 2012. At the CMC, the Court set July 13, 2012 as the deadline for the Parties to 3 complete mediation. 4 5 of Action alleged is for disability discrimination, failure to engage in the interactive process, 6 failure to accommodate disability, and failure to prevent discrimination in violation of 7 California's Fair Employment and Housing Act. The Second Cause of Action alleged is for 8 retaliation for taking medical leave in violation of the California Family Rights Act. The Third 9
3. WHEREAS, Plaintiff's Complaint alleges three causes of action. The First Cause Cause of Action alleged is for tortious discharge in violation of public policy. Among other items 10 of alleged damage, Plaintiff seeks to recover damages for alleged "emotional distress, 11 embarrassment, humiliation, and mental anguish." 12 13 claim for emotional distress damages, Defendant began the process in January 2012 of seeking 14 Permanente ("KP"). 16
4. WHEREAS, because Plaintiff's alleged disability is issue in the case, as well as his Plaintiff's medical and psychiatric records from his treating health care providers at Kaiser 15
5. WHEREAS, due to various mishaps described infra, KP has yet to release any of Plaintiff's psychiatric records. 18
19 counsel with a KP Authorization for Use or Disclosure of Patient Health Information 20
("Authorization") and asked that the Authorization be signed and returned to defense counsel so 21 that the subject medical and psychiatric records could then be subpoenaed from KP. 22
23 counsel, but instead delivered it to KP. As a result, a new Authorization needed to be prepared to 24 begin the subpoena process. Thus, on March 15, 2012, defense counsel provided a new 25
8. WHEREAS, Plaintiff promptly signed the Authorization on March 26. However, 27 it was inadvertently not provided to defense counsel until April 16, 2012. 28
6. WHEREAS, in a January 25, 2012 letter, defense counsel provided Plaintiff's
7. WHEREAS, although Plaintiff signed the Authorization, he did ...