1 SANJAY S. SCHMIDT (State Bar No. 247475) LAW OFFICE OF SANJAY S. SCHMIDT 2 1388 Sutter Street, Suite 810 San Francisco, CA 94109 3 Telephone: (415) 563-8583 4 [email protected]

5 T. KENNEDY HELM, IV (State Bar No. 282319) HELM LAW OFFICE, PC 6 644 40th Street, Suite 305 Oakland, CA 94609 7 Telephone: (510) 350-7517 8 [email protected]

9 Attorneys for All Plaintiffs

10 DANA A. SUNTAG (State Bar No. 125127) JOSHUA J. STEVENS (State Bar No. 238105) 11 HERUM\CRABTREE\SUNTAG, LLP 12 5757 Pacific Avenue, Suite 222 Stockton, California 95207 13 Telephone: (209) 472-7700 [email protected] 14 [email protected] 15 Attorneys for All Defendants 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 17 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 18 D.B., a minor, by and through his guardian Case No.: 2:21-cv-02154-DJC-SCR 19 ad litem, Elisa Mulvihill, individually and as co-successor in interest to Decedent 20 ANTWAUNE P. BURRISE, SR., et al, STIPULATION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER AND ORDER 21 Plaintiffs, 22 vs.

23 CITY OF STOCKTON, et al.,

24 Defendants. 25 26 27 STIPULATION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER 1 All Parties, through their undersigned counsel of record, and subject to the 2 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 5 cause, extend the time with or without motion if the court acts, or a request is made, 6 before the original time expires. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A). With respect to an order setting 7 forth the Court’s pretrial schedule, “[t]he district court may modify the pretrial schedule ‘if 8 it cannot be reasonably met despite the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.’” 9 Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 1992). This is the 10 Parties’ sixth request for extension of time of the Pretrial Scheduling Order; the prior five 11 requests were all granted for good cause. See ECF Nos. 25, 33, 47, 49, and 63. 12 B. On January 22, 2025, the Parties and their counsel conducted an 13 approximately nine-hour-long in person mediation with Tamara Lange, Esq., of 14 JAMS/San Francisco. The case did not settle, in part because there were still depositions 15 to complete, but the Parties made progress and they agreed to keep their dialogue 16 regarding settlement open as they completed fact discovery. 17 C. The Parties have agreed to conduct a second mediation session with the 18 mediator, have organized and coordinated the session, and have confirmed with the 19 mediator that the second session will proceed on August 7, 2025, and will go the entire 20 day, if necessary. That date was the first date available to the Parties, their counsel, and 21 the mediator. 22 D. The operative scheduling order (ECF No. 63) requires the Parties to 23 disclose experts on August 1, 2025, and to disclose rebuttal experts on September 23, 24 2025. Disclosure of experts would entail a significant expenditure of time and resources, 25 as the Parties will have to coordinate with their experts; gather and finalize their respective 26 experts’ reports and exhibits; and gather the other items required to be disclosed by 27 1 JOINT STATUS REPORT & STIPULATION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING 1 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B). The Parties would like to conserve the 2 resources associated with gathering and finalizing these materials, as it may promote 3 settlement by allowing them to instead focus their efforts on the mediation. 4 E. This Court’s order granting the Parties’ previous request for a modification 5 of the scheduling order (ECF No. 63) stated no further extensions of time would be 6 granted absent good cause. The Parties took this to heart, and this Stipulation requests 7 modification of as few dates as possible, without impacting later dates this Court set. 8 Indeed, the Parties completed their planned non-expert discovery by the June 4, 2025, 9 deadline in that scheduling order, including: the Plaintiffs deposed Defendant Wells; 10 former Chief Jones; a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) deponent; and the County 11 of San Joaquin’s Chief Medical Examiner, forensic pathologist Dr. Hunter; and 12 Defendants deposed four of Plaintiffs’ damages witnesses, all between the issuance of 13 that scheduling order and the fact discovery cutoff date. The Parties’ mutual desire to 14 make good faith efforts towards settlement, including, without limitation, conducting a 15 second mediation session, constitutes good cause for the requested modification. 16 F. To that end, the Parties request only the following modifications: 17 (i) That the deadline to disclose experts be extended from August 1, 2025, to August 21, 2025, and; 18 (ii) The deadline to disclose rebuttal experts be correspondingly extended for a similar amount of time, from September 23, 2025, to October 10, 2025. 19

20 The Parties are not requesting to extend or modify any other dates in the operative 21 scheduling order. This proposed modification would allow the parties to conduct the 22 second session of the mediation and conserve their resources with regards to disclosing 23 experts, and still allow sufficient time to disclose experts if the case does not resolve at 24 mediation on August 7, 2025. 25 G. The Parties have further agreed to cooperate so that all expert depositions 26 will be scheduled and completed before the expert discovery cutoff of November 18, 27 2 JOINT STATUS REPORT & STIPULATION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING 1 2025, and are not requesting any extension of this deadline. 2 STIPULATION 3 The Parties, by and through their undersigned counsel, respectfully request that 4 the Court modify the Scheduling Order as follows: 5 Deadline Current Date (ECF No. 63) Proposed Date Expert witness disclosures August 1, 2025 August 21, 2025 6 Rebuttal expert witness September 23, 2025 October 10, 2025 7 disclosures Expert Discovery Cutoff November 18, 2025 Unchanged 8 Deadline to file all motions December 17, 2025 Unchanged Hearing on dispositive motions February 19, 2026, Unchanged 9 1:30 p.m. 10 Final Pretrial Conference May 11, 2026, 1:30 p.m. Unchanged Jury Trial July 13, 2026, 9:00 a.m. Unchanged 11 12 Based on the foregoing, the parties respectfully request that the Court grant this 13 stipulation for a modification of the Scheduling Order. 14 Respectfully Submitted, 15 Dated: June 17, 2025 HERUM CRABTREE SUNTAG, LLP

16 By: /s/ Joshua J. Stevens 17 _________________________ JOSHUA J. STEVENS 18 Attorneys for all Defendants

19 Dated: June 17, 2025 LAW OFFICE OF SANJAY S. SCHMIDT 20 HELM LAW OFFICE, PC 21 By: /s/ Sanjay S. Schmidt 22 _________________________ SANJAY S. SCHMIDT 23 (As authorized on June 17, 2025) Attorneys for all Plaintiffs 24

25 26 27 3 JOINT STATUS REPORT & STIPULATION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING 1 ORDER 2 The Court, having considered the parties’ stipulation, and good cause appearing, 3 rules as follows: 4 The Court finds the Parties have shown good cause for the relief their Stipulation 5 requests. 6 THEREFORE, the relief the Parties request is GRANTED, and the modified dates 7 are as follows: 8 Deadline Current Date (ECF No. 63) Proposed Date Expert witness disclosures August 1, 2025 August 21, 2025 9 Rebuttal expert witness September 23, 2025 October 10, 2025 10 disclosures Expert Discovery Cutoff November 18, 2025 Unchanged 11 Deadline to file all motions December 17, 2025 Unchanged Hearing on dispositive motions February 19, 2026, Unchanged 12 1:30 p.m. 13 Final Pretrial Conference May 11, 2026, 1:30 p.m. Unchanged Jury Trial July 13, 2026, 9:00 a.m. Unchanged 14 15 The Court further orders the Parties to cooperate, so that all expert depositions will 16 be completed by or before November 18, 2025. 17 18 Dated: June 17, 2025 /s/ Daniel J. Calabretta 19 THE HONORABLE DANIEL J. CALABRETTA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 4 JOINT STATUS REPORT & STIPULATION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING