Henne v. County of San Joaquin

1 Sanjay S. Schmidt (SBN 247475) Grace Jun (SBN 287973) LAW OFFICE OF SANJAY S. SCHMIDT GRACE JUN, ATTORNEY AT LAW 1388 Sutter Street, Suite 810 501 West Broadway, Ste. 1480 San Francisco, CA 94109 San Diego, CA 92101 T: (415) 563-8583 T: (310) 709-4012 F: (415) 223-9717 e-mail: [email protected] e-mail: [email protected] Panos Lagos (SBN 61821) LAW OFFICES OF PANOS LAGOS 6569 Glen Oaks Way Oakland, CA 94611 T: (510) 530-4078 Ext. 101 F: (510) 530-4725 e-mail: [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiffs 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 13 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WILLIAM HENNE, Decedent, by and through ) Case No. 2:24-CV-02275-TLN-AC his successors in interest; F.H., a minor, by and ) through her proposed guardian ad litem, Reatana ) [Assigned to the Honorable U.S. District Ven, individually and as co-successor in interest ) Judge Troy L. Nunley – Courtroom 2] to Decedent; W.A.H., a minor, by and through his ) proposed guardian ad litem, Alexis Celeste, ) FIRST STIPULATION AND ORDER individually and as co-successor in interest to ) TO MODIFY INITIAL PRETRIAL Decedent; W.R.H., a minor, by and through his ) SCHEDULING ORDER proposed guardian ad litem, Alexis Celeste, ) individually and as co-successor in interest to ) Decedent, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) 22 vs. ) ) COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN, a public entity, et ) al., ) ) 25 Defendants. ) ) /// /// 1 Plaintiffs and Defendants (“the parties”), all through their undersigned counsel of record, and subject to the approval of the Court, respectfully stipulate as follows: 3 RECITALS 4 A. On August 20, 2024, Plaintiffs filed this civil-rights, wrongful death, and survival action.

B. On August 21, 2024, the Court issued its Initial Pretrial Scheduling Order (the “Scheduling Order”). ECF No. 3.

C. On September 9, 2024, the Court granted the previously filed application of Retana Ven to be appointed the guardian ad litem for minor Plaintiff F.H. ECF No. 10.

D. On September 9, 2024, the Court granted the previously filed applications of Alexis Celeste to be appointed the guardian ad litem for minor Plaintiffs W.A.H. and W.R.H. ECF No. 11.

E. On October 10, 2024, a Waiver of Service was filed as to all Defendants. ECF No. 12.

16 F. On November 27, 2024, the County of San Joaquin Defendants filed an Answer to Plaintiffs’ Complaint. ECF No. 14.

18 G. The parties have met and conferred regarding the Scheduling Order, and the parties believe certain dates in it will not give the parties sufficient time to investigate the issues in the case, conduct discovery, and prepare for trial.

21 H. The undersigned counsel for Plaintiffs are in the midst of conducting extensive discovery in a number of other complex, in-custody death cases, and two of the undersigned co- counsel for Plaintiffs have separate jury trials commencing on April 21 in such matters, both of which will progressively consume substantial time through and including April 21 – May 2, following which several weeks are blocked off for depositions of fact witnesses and expert witnesses in other matters. Counsel for Plaintiffs have highly impacted schedules for the next 8-9 months.

I. The parties, nevertheless, have exchanged initial Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures and Plaintiff has served Requests for Production.

2 J. Given the press of business, other trials, and matters that counsel have scheduled, the anticipated time the parties will require to respond to discovery requests and marshal the documents that will be requested, the time required to meet and confer on discovery in an effort to avoid potential discovery motions, the time required for the parties to prepare a stipulated protective order governing the production of sensitive or confidential materials or information, the large number of depositions that may have to be taken, as well as the desire of counsel for the parties to be able to exercise professional courtesy by reasonably accommodating the schedules of the deponents and counsel as much as possible, granting reasonable extensions, 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 120 days be added to the deadline for the completion of discovery, as set forth in Section III of the Initial Pretrial Scheduling Order. (ECF No. 3 at 2:15-23.) All successive deadlines in the Pretrial Scheduling Order would be correspondingly extended, with spacing between such dates to remain the same as is set forth in the Pretrial Scheduling Order.

18 K. The parties, therefore, respectfully request additional time to complete these items in the Scheduling Order.

20 L. 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.’” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992).

M. There have been no prior modifications of the Scheduling Order. // // 1 STIPULATION 2 The parties, by and through their undersigned counsel, respectfully request that the Court modify the Scheduling Order as follows: Case Event Current Deadline Proposed Amended (ECF No. 3) Deadline Cutoff of Non-Expert 11/27/2025 03/27/2026 Discovery Expert disclosures/ Expert 1/26/2026 05/26/2026 Witness Designations Rebuttal expert disclosures 2/25/2026 06/25/2026 Supplemental disclosures 04/24/2026 08/24/2026 (FRCP 26(e)) Dispositive motion filing cut- 05/26/2026 09/23/2026 off date Based on the foregoing, the parties respectfully request that the Court grant this stipulation for a modification of the Scheduling Order.

Respectfully Submitted, Dated: March 10, 2025 LAW OFFICE OF SANJAY S.

16 SCHMIDT, GRACE JUN, ATTORNEY AT LAW, and 17 LAW OFFICES OF PANOS LAGOS /s/ Sanjay S. Schmidt 19 By: SANJAY S. SCHMIDT Attorneys for Plaintiffs Dated: March 10, 2025 BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP /s/ Kyle Anne Piasecki * 23 By: Kyle Anne Piasecki Gregory B. Thomas Kyle Anne Piasecki 25 Jackson D. Morgus Attorneys for Defendants *Pursuant to Local Rule 131(e), counsel has authorized submission of this document on counsel’s behalf.

ORDER 3 The Court, having considered the parties’ stipulation, and good cause appearing, rules a || follows: ° 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 scheduling order 1 modified as follows: New Deadline Cutoff of Non-Expert Discover 03/27/2026 10 Expert disclosures/ Expert Witness 05/26/2026 Designations 11 Rebuttal expert disclosures 06/25/2026 Supplemental disclosures (FRCP 26(e 08/24/2026 !2 Ill Dispositive motion filing cut-off date 09/23/2026 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 10, 2025 17 Troy L. Nunléy 18 Chief United States District Judge Stipulation and Order to Modify Scheduling Order Henne, et al. v. County of San Joaquin, et al.