1 CKHELRSISETYO JP. HFIESRC WHE. RW, OEOSQD., /E SSBQN. :/ 2S9B2N26: 21 93955 2 DREYER BABICH BUCCOLA WOOD CAMPORA, LLP 20 Bicentennial Circle 3 Sacramento, CA 95826 Telephone: (916) 379-3500 4 Facsimile: (916) 379-3599

5 Attorneys for Plaintiff

6 ERIC GRANT United States Attorney 7 JOSEPH FRUEH Assistant United States Attorney 8 501 I Street, Suite 10-100 Sacramento, CA 95814 9 E-mail: [email protected] Telephone: (916) 554-2702 10 Facsimile: (916) 554-2900

11 Attorneys for Defendant

12

13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

14 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

15 STEPHANIE HAMMOND, No. 2:23-cv-02984-JAM-JDP

16 Plaintiff, STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER FOR STAYING CASE AND MODIFYING 17 v. PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER

18 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

19 Defendant.

20 21 IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, by and between the parties and subject to Court approval, and in 22 light of the current lapse in appropriations to the Department of Justice, that (1) this action be stayed 23 pending the restoration of appropriations or the enactment of a continuing resolution, and (2) the parties 24 submit a joint stipulation and proposed order modifying the current Pretrial Scheduling Order (see 25 ECF 16) within seven days of the restoration of appropriations or the enactment of a continuing 26 resolution. The reasons for this stipulation are as follows. 27 1. This is a personal-injury lawsuit that arises from a car accident on March 14, 2023, 28 involving Plaintiff Stephanie Hammond and an employee of the United States Postal Service. Because 1 the Postal Service employee was acting within the scope of his federal employment at the time of the 2 accident, Plaintiff’s claims are asserted against the United States pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims 3 Act,

(b), 2671–80. 4 2. To diligently advance this case toward resolution, the parties have engaged in written 5 discovery, third-party subpoenas for records and documents, fact-witness depositions, and medical 6 evaluations under Rule 35 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 7 3. The Pretrial Scheduling Order provides for expert disclosures to be served on October 17, 8 2025, with subsequent deadlines keyed to this date. But, as detailed below, several developments— 9 including the federal-government shutdown—have impeded the orderly completion of non-expert 10 discovery and the preparation of expert disclosures. 11 4. On Friday, September 12, 2025, Plaintiff served supplemental disclosures and 12 supplemental responses to the United States’ discovery requests. Thereafter, from Monday 13 September 15 to September 24, 2025, undersigned counsel for the United States was required to conduct 14 a jury trial before Chief Judge Troy L. Nunley. Plaintiff’s supplemental disclosures and responses must 15 now be reviewed by counsel for the United States and the United States’ experts. 16 5. Also, during September 2025, the parties engaged in extensive meet-and-confer efforts 17 regarding whether Plaintiff would undergo a neuropsychological evaluation under Rule 35 of the 18 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which efforts included briefing and a conference before the assigned 19 Magistrate Judge. See ECF 17–20. The parties ultimately distilled their positions such that the 20 evaluation can now go forward, with Plaintiff preserving some potential objections for trial. By the time 21 the parties distilled their positions, however, the United States’ retained neuropsychologist was no 22 longer available to conduct an evaluation until October 29, 2025, at the earliest. 23 6. Moreover, at the end of the day on September 30, 2025, the appropriations that have been 24 funding the Department of Justice expired and appropriations to the Department lapsed. The 25 Department does not know when funding will be restored by Congress. Absent an appropriation or 26 continuing resolution, Department of Justice attorneys are prohibited from working, even on a voluntary 27 basis, except in limited circumstances, including “emergencies involving the safety of human life or the 28 protection of property.”

. That exception is not deemed to include most civil cases. 1 7. Based on the foregoing, the parties respectfully submit that there is good cause to stay 2 this action pending the restoration of appropriations or the enactment of a continuing resolution, 3 and to direct the parties submit a joint stipulation and proposed order modifying the current 4 Pretrial Scheduling Order within seven days of the restoration of appropriations or the enactment 5 of a continuing resolution. 6 8. It is well established that a court may stay proceedings as part of its inherent power “to 7 control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, 8 and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co.,

(1936); see also, e.g., Clinton v. Jones, 520

, 706 (1997) (“The District Court has broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its 10 power to control its own docket.”). 11 Respectfully submitted, 12 Dated: October 7, 2025 DREYER BABICH BUCCOLA WOOD CAMPORA, LLP

13 By: /s/ Kelsey J. Fischer (authorized 10/7/2025) KELSEY J. FISCHER 14 Attorneys for Plaintiff 15 16 Dated: October 8, 2025 ERIC GRANT United States Attorney 17 By: /s/ Joseph Frueh 18 JOSEPH FRUEH Assistant United States Attorney 19 Attorneys for Defendant 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 2 3 ORDER 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 7 Dated: October 09, 2025

SENIOR UNITED S4ATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

STITT ATION ANT) PRADACEN ODER Tap eTavine Cace 4