D. B. v. City of Stockton

1 SANJAY S. SCHMIDT (State Bar No. 247475) LAW OFFICE OF SANJAY S. SCHMIDT 1388 Sutter Street, Suite 810 San Francisco, CA 94109 Telephone: (415) 563-8583 [email protected] T. KENNEDY HELM, IV (State Bar No. 282319) HELM LAW OFFICE, PC 644 40th Street, Suite 305 Oakland, CA 94609 Telephone: (510) 350-7517 [email protected] Attorneys for All Plaintiffs DANA A. SUNTAG (State Bar No. 125127) JOSHUA J. STEVENS (State Bar No. 238105) HERUM\CRABTREE\SUNTAG, LLP 5757 Pacific Avenue, Suite 222 Stockton, California 95207 Telephone: (209) 472-7700 [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for All Defendants UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA D.B., a minor, by and through his guardian Case No.: 2:21-cv-02154-DJC-SCR ad litem, Elisa Mulvihill, individually and as co-successor in interest to Decedent ANTWAUNE P. BURRISE, SR., et al, JOINT STATUS REPORT (RE: ECF NO. 59) WITH STIPULATION TO Plaintiffs, MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER (ECF 22 vs. NO. 49) AND ORDER CITY OF STOCKTON, et al., 24 Defendants.

JOINT STATUS REPORT & STIPULATION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING 1 All Parties, through their undersigned counsel of record, and subject to the approval of the Court, stipulate as follows: 3 RECITALS 4 A. When an act must be done within a specified time, the Court may, for good cause, extend the time with or without motion if the court acts, or a request is made, before the original time expires. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A). With respect to an order setting forth the Court’s pretrial schedule, “[t]he district court may modify the pretrial schedule ‘if it cannot be reasonably met despite the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.’”

9 Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). This is the Parties’ fifth request for extension of time of the Pretrial Scheduling Order; the prior four requests were all granted for good cause. See ECF Nos. 25, 33, 47, and 49.

12 B. The Parties attended an approximately nine-hour-long in person mediation with Tamara Lange, Esq., of JAMS/San Francisco, on January 22, 2025. While the matter did not settle, the Parties made progress, and they have agreed to continue settlement discussions while they resume the process of conducting and completing fact discovery and expert discovery. The Parties are considering scheduling a second mediation session with Ms. Lange.

18 C. On January 22, 2025, after the mediation, Plaintiffs noticed the depositions of Defendants David Wells and Eric Jones for February 6, and 13, 2025, respectively.

20 Defendants have agreed to produce Defendant Officer Wells for deposition on March 13, 2025, indicating that there are no dates before then on which both Defendant Wells and his counsel are both available, and have agreed to Plaintiffs’ request that Defendant Jones be deposed on a mutually agreeable date after Officer Wells’ deposition. In addition to and after the depositions of Defendants Wells and Jones have been completed, Plaintiffs need to depose one or more Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) designees from Defendant City, and the pathologist who performed Mr. Burrise’s autopsy. There are 27 1 JOINT STATUS REPORT & STIPULATION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING also a number of third-party witnesses disclosed by Plaintiffs that Defendants would like to depose. The parties are meeting and conferring in an attempt both to stipulate to limit the number of these depositions, as well as to schedule these depositions on mutually- agreeable dates.

5 D. Given the foregoing, and pursuant to this Court’s order (ECF No. 59) that the Parties provide updated pretrial dates and deadlines in the event that this case did not resolve at mediation, the Parties provide the following proposed modifications to the dates in the stayed Scheduling Order (ECF No. 49). Given the remaining depositions that have to be taken; the fact that the parties have had an effective “cease fire” on discovery since the Status Conference hearing with the Court, on October 10, 2024, forbearing from discovery up to and until the conclusion of the mediation and given also the desire of counsel for the Parties to be able to exercise professional courtesies by reasonably accommodating the schedules of the deponents and counsel as much as is reasonably possible, and the need to set depositions on mutually available dates, including the anticipated difficulties with doing this (in view of the number of schedules and potential depositions involved); the undersigned counsel reasonably estimate the need for, and, thus, respectfully request, that an additional approximately 240 days be added to the deadline of October 7, 2024, to complete discovery that this Court stayed by minute order issued on October 16, 2024 (ECF No. 59).

27 2 JOINT STATUS REPORT & STIPULATION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING 1 STIPULATION 2 The Parties, by and through their undersigned counsel, respectfully request that the Court modify the Scheduling Order as follows: 4 Deadline Current Date (ECF No. 49) Proposed Date Fact Discovery Cutoff October 7, 2024 (stayed) June 4, 2025 Expert witness disclosures December 3, 2024 (stayed) August 1, 2025 Rebuttal expert witness January 24, 2025 (stayed) September 23, disclosures 2025 Expert Discovery Cutoff March 24, 2025 (stayed) November 18, 2025 Deadline to file all motions April 30, 2025 December 17, 9 2025 Hearing on dispositive motions June 26, 2025, February 19, 10 1:30 p.m. 2026, 1:30 p.m.

Final Pretrial Conference September 11, 2025, May 11, 2026, 1:30 p.m. 1:30 p.m.

12 Jury Trial November 10, 2025, July 13, 2026, 9:00 a.m. 9:00 a.m.

13 Based on the foregoing, the parties respectfully request that the Court grant this stipulation for a modification of the Scheduling Order.

15 Respectfully Submitted, Dated: February 5, 2025 HERUM CRABTREE SUNTAG, LLP By: /s/ Joshua J. Stevens* 18 _________________________ JOSHUA J. STEVENS 19 Attorneys for all Defendants Dated: February 5, 2025 LAW OFFICE OF SANJAY S. SCHMIDT HELM LAW OFFICE, PC By: /s/ T. Kennedy Helm, IV 23 _________________________ T. KENNEDY HELM, IV 24 Attorneys for all Plaintiffs *Pursuant to Local Rule 131(e), counsel has authorized submission of this document on counsel’s behalf.

27 3 JOINT STATUS REPORT & STIPULATION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING 1 ORDER 2 The Court, having considered the parties’ stipulation, and good cause appearing, rules as follows: 4 The Court finds the Parties have shown good cause for the relief their Stipulation requests.

6 THEREFORE, the relief the Parties request is GRANTED, and the modified dates are as follows: 8 Deadline Current Date (ECF No. 49) Modified Date Fact Discovery Cutoff October 7, 2024 (stayed) June 4, 2025 Expert witness disclosures December 3, 2024 (stayed) August 1, 2025 Rebuttal expert witness January 24, 2025 (stayed) September 23, disclosures 2025 Expert Discovery Cutoff March 24, 2025 (stayed) November 18, 2025 Deadline to file all motions April 30, 2025 December 17, 13 2025 Hearing on dispositive motions June 26, 2025, February 19, 14 1:30 p.m. 2026, 1:30 p.m.

Final Pretrial Conference September 11, 2025, May 7, 2026, 1:30 p.m. 1:30 p.m.

16 Jury Trial November 10, 2025, July 13, 2026, 9:00 a.m. 8:30 a.m.

18 The June 4, 2025 discovery cutoff means that all discovery shall have been conducted so that all depositions have been taken and any disputes relevant to discovery shall have been resolved by appropriate order if necessary and, where discovery has been ordered, the order has been obeyed. The parties are advised that motions to compel must be filed in advance of the discovery completion deadlines so that the Court may grant effective relief within the allotted discovery time. A party’s failure to have a discovery dispute heard sufficiently in advance of the discovery cutoff may result in denial of the motion as untimely. This applies in particular to the 27 4 JOINT STATUS REPORT & STIPULATION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING deposition of Mr. Wells, which was discussed at length during the October 10, 2024 Status Conference.

3 Given the length of time during which this case has been pending, no further modifications of this schedule are contemplated absent a showing of good cause in compelling circumstances.

7 Dated: February 13, 2025 /s/ Daniel J. Calabretta THE HONORABLE DANIEL J. CALABRETTA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 27 5 JOINT STATUS REPORT & STIPULATION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING