1 LAW OFFICE OF SANJAY S. SCHMIDT BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP Sanjay S. Schmidt (SBN 247475) Gregory B. Thomas (SBN 239870) 2 1388 Sutter Street, Suite 810 Chris E. Brumfiel (SBN 214866) San Francisco, CA 94109 Jackson D. Morgus (SBN 318453) 3 Tel. (415) 563-8583 1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1650 4 Fax (415) 223-9717 Oakland, CA 94612-3520 e-mail: [email protected] Tel. (510) 273-8780 5 Fax (510) 839-9104 HELM LAW OFFICE, PC e-mail: [email protected] 6 T. Kennedy Helm, IV (SBN 282319) e-mail: [email protected] 644 40th Street, Suite 305 e-mail: [email protected] 7 Oakland, CA 94609 Attorneys for County Defendants 8 T: (510) 350-7517 F: (510) 350-7359 9 e-mail: [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiff S.L. 10

11 GRAY DUFFY EISENABUM & LEE, LLP PATTON TRIAL GROUP Michael S. Eisenbaum (SBN 149072) Christopher L. Patton (SBN 193921) 12 21700 Oxnard Street, Suite 1950 Rayelle D. Sabo (SBN 245692) Woodland Hills, CA 91367 3400 Inland Empire Boulevard, Suite 101 13 Tel. (818) 907-4000 Ontario, California 91764 Fax (818) 783-4551 Tel. (909) 460-8401 14 e-mail: [email protected] Fax (909) 801-2486 15 Attorney for Defendant e-mail: [email protected] McCarly & Son Painting, Industrial Coatings, [email protected] 16 Inc. Attorneys for Defendant Sletten Construction Company 17

18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 19 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 20 SACRAMENTO DIVISION 21 S.L., a minor, by and through her mother and ) CASE NO. 2:24-cv-01697-JAM-JDP 22 guardian ad litem, Karen Josephs, ) individually and as successor in interest to ) STIPULATION AND ORDER TO 23 Decedent ARON LEWANDOWSKI, ) MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER ) (ECF. NO. 32) 24 Plaintiff, ) ) 25 v. ) ) 26 COUNTY OF TRINITY, a municipal ) corporation; TIM SAXON, Trinity County ) 27 Sheriff-Coroner, individually; RON ) WHITMAN, Trinity County Sheriff’s ) Trinity County Sheriff’s Sergeant, ) 1 individually; MARCUS TREANOR, Trinity ) County Correctional Officer, individually; ) 2 ANDREW ROBBINS, Trinity County ) Sheriff’s Deputy, individually; CONNIE ) 3 CESSNA-SMITH, MPA, Director of Trinity ) County Behavioral Health Services, 4 individually; MICHAEL NOVAK, P.A., ) ) individually; LINDA KRONER, Trinity 5 County Behavioral Health Case Manager, ) ) individually; SLETTEN CONSTRUCTION 6 COMPANY, a Montana Corporation; ) ) MCCARLY & SON PAINTING, 7 INDUSTRIAL COATINGS, Inc., a ) ) California Corporation; and DOES 3–50, 8 jointly and severally, ) )

9 Defendants. )

10 Plaintiff S.L., a minor, by and through her mother and guardian ad litem, Karen Josephs, 11 and by and through her undersigned counsel of record; Defendants County of Trinity, Tim 12 Saxon, Ron Whitman, Joshua Ford, Marcus Treanor, Andrew Robbins, Connie Cessna-Smith, 13 Michael Novak, and Linda Kroner (“County Defendants”), by and through their undersigned 14 counsel of record; Defendant McCarly & Son Painting, Industrial Coatings, Inc. (“McCarly”), 15 by and through its undersigned counsel of record; and Defendant Sletten Construction Company 16 (“Sletten”), by and through its undersigned counsel of record; and subject to the approval of the 17 Court, respectfully stipulate as follows: 18 RECITALS 19 1. This is the Parties’ first request to modify the operative Pretrial Scheduling Order. ECF 20 No. 32. The Parties seek to continue by 240 days the deadline for expert disclosures and 21 successive dates. When an act must be done within a specified time, the Court may, for good 22 cause, extend the time with or without motion if the Court acts, or a request is made, before the 23 original time expires. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A). With respect to an order setting forth the 24 Court’s pretrial schedule, “[t]he district court may modify the pretrial schedule ‘if it cannot be 25 reasonably met despite the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.’” Johnson v. 26 Mammoth Recreations, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 1992). The Parties submit that good 27 cause exists to continue the deadline for expert disclosures, currently December 12, 2025 (ECF No. 32), as well as successive deadlines, for three reasons. 1 2. First, based on information that came to light during discovery, and pursuant to Federal 2 Rule of Civil Procedure 19, Defendants McCarly and Sletten have recently been brought into 3 this case by Plaintiff as defendants and by the County Defendants as cross defendants, pursuant 4 to Fed. R. Civ. P. 13(g). See ECF Nos. 38–44. 5 3. By way of background, on October 17, 2025, by stipulation, this Court ordered: (1) 6 Plaintiff to file a Second Amended Complaint naming Sletten and McCarley as defendants; and 7 (2) County Defendants to file their crossclaim within twenty days from the filing of the Second 8 Amended Complaint, Fed. R. Civ. P. 13(g), against both Sletten and McCarley. ECF No. 38. 9 4. On October 22, 2025, Plaintiff filed the Second Amended Complaint. ECF No. 39. On 10 November 3, 2025, the County Defendants filed an answer to Plaintiff’s Second Amended 11 Complaint, including the cross-claim, Fed. R. Civ. P. 13, against Sletten and McCarley. ECF 12 No. 41. 13 5. Thereafter, Plaintiff served the Second Amended Complaint on Sletten and McCarly, and 14 on November 7, 2025, filed proofs of service thereto. ECF Nos. 42–43. 15 6. On November 24, 2025, McCarly filed an answer to Plaintiff’s Second Amended 16 Complaint. ECF No. 44. 17 7. On November 25, 2025, Sletten’s responsive pleading was due. As of November 26, 18 2025, however, Sletten had not filed a responsive pleading. 19 8. The Parties have stipulated that Sletten may have an additional 28 days, pursuant to Local 20 Rule 144(a), in which to file their responsive pleading, until December 23, 2025. This date falls 21 after the operative December 12, 2025, deadline for expert disclosures. 22 9. Although Plaintiff and the County Defendants have engaged in extensive written 23 discovery and continue to meet and confer regarding various discovery issues, so that discovery 24 can soon move into the deposition phase, depositions have not yet commenced due to (a) the 25 pendency of crucial discovery materials and (b) the fact that Plaintiff and the County Defendants 26 do not wish to conduct depositions before Defendants McCarly and Sletten have appeared and 27 since it could risk having to repeat such depositions, which would unduly consume attorney time 1 and resources and potentially expose deponents to a second deposition. 2 10. Therefore, the Parties submit that good cause exists to modify the pretrial 3 scheduling order to allow Sletten and McCarly to have enough time to provide initial disclosures 4 and to afford all parties adequate time to complete sufficient fact discovery to address all issues 5 raised in the pleadings and then to meet the deadline for expert disclosures. 6 11. Second, good cause exists to continue the deadline for expert disclosures because 7 Plaintiff and the County Defendants also require additional time to complete sufficient fact 8 discovery for their experts to draft their reports. By way of background, Plaintiff and the County 9 Defendants have diligently engaged in paper discovery, a necessary condition precedent to 10 taking depositions. On August 30, 2024, the Parties exchanged Rule 26 initial disclosures, and 11 Plaintiff served her first set of Rule 34 requests. On September 9, 2024, the County Defendants 12 served their first Rule 33 and Rule 34 requests on Plaintiff. On November 21, 2024, the County 13 Defendants served responses to Plaintiff’s first set of Rule 34 requests, and Plaintiff served 14 responses to County Defendants’ Rule 33 and Rule 34 requests. 15 12. On March 26, 2025, the Parties served their first document productions, and 16 Plaintiff served her second set of Rule 34 requests. On May 1, 2025, County Defendants served 17 responses to Plaintiffs’ second set of Rule 34 requests, but produced no documents. On June 9, 18 2025, and August 14, 2025, the County Defendants served supplemental Rule 26 disclosures 19 and produced documents. 20 13. On August 15, 2025, Plaintiff sent a meet and confer letter to County Defendants 21 regarding their responses to Plaintiff’s first and second sets of Rule 34 requests and their 22 document production. On September 30, 2025, the County Defendants served additional 23 responsive documents. On October 22, 2025, Plaintiff sent a further meet-and-confer 24 correspondence to the County Defendants regarding documents that Plaintiff contends should 25 be produced, with a follow up email on November 11, 2025. Plaintiff and the County 26 Defendants, therefore, need additional time to meet and confer on the withheld documents to 27 14. Third, the number of anticipated depositions in this complex, in-custody death 1 action will require counsel to exercise professional courtesies by reasonably accommodating the 2 schedules of the deponents and counsel in setting depositions, which necessarily requires 3 additional time in order to set depositions on dates when the schedules of all counsel and the 4 deponent(s) align. 5 STIPULATION 6 1. The Parties respectfully submit that they have acted diligently, such that good 7 cause exists to modify the current scheduling order. Mammoth Recreations, Inc.,

609. The Parties stipulate and respectfully request that approximately 240 days be added to the 9 deadline for expert disclosures. All successive deadlines in the Scheduling Order would be 10 correspondingly extended, with spacing between the deadlines maintained as much as possible, 11 as set forth below: 12 13 Matter Current Date (ECF No. 32) Proposed Date Expert Disclosures December 12, 2025 August 10, 2026 14 Rebuttal Expert Disclosures December 26, 2025 August 24, 2026 Joint Mid-Litigation Statement January 23, 2026 September 21, 2026 15 Fact and Expert Discovery (Cutoff) February 6, 2026 October 5, 2026 Dispositive Motion Filing April 3, 2026 November 30, 2026 16 Dispositive Motion Hearing June 2, 2026 February 2, 2027 17 Final Pretrial Conference July 31, 2026 March 26, 2027 Jury Trial September 14, 2026 May 10, 2027 18 Respectfully Submitted, 19 DATED: December 12, 2025 LAW OFFICE OF SANJAY S. SCHMIDT 20 HELM LAW OFFICE, PC 21 By: /s/ T. Kennedy Helm, IV 22 T. Kennedy Helm, IV Attorneys for Plaintiff 23 DATED: December 12, 2025 BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP 24

25 By: /s/ Jackson D. Morgus [as authorized 12/10/25] Gregory B. Thomas 26 Chris E. Brumfiel Jackson D. Morgus 27 Attorneys for County Defendants ! || DATED: December 12,2025 GRAY DUFFY EISENBAUM & LEE, LLP By: /s/ Michael S. Eisenbaum_ [as authorized 12/12/25] 3 Michael S. Eisenbaum Attorney for Defendant McCarly & Son Painting 5 DATED: December 12, 2025 PATTON TRIAL GROUP

6 By: /s/ Christopher L. Patton [as authorized 12/12/25] Christopher L. Patton 7 Rayelle D. Sabo Attorneys for Defendant Sletten Construction Company 9 ORDER 10 The Court, having considered the Parties’ stipulation, and good cause appearing, the 11 || Court orders the following modifications to the scheduling order (ECF No. 32): 12 3 Current Date (ECF No. 32 December 12, 2025 August 10, 2026 14 Rebuttal Expert Disclosures December 26, 2025 August 24, 2026 Joint Mid-Litigation Statement January 23, 2026 September 21, 2026 15 Fact and Expert Discovery (Cutoff) | February 6, 2026 October 5, 2026 1 Dispositive Motion Filing April 3, 2026 November 30, 2026 6 Dispositive Motion Hearing June 2, 2026 February 2, 2027 Final Pretrial Conference July 31, 2026 March 26, 2027 18 10:00 am Jury Trial September 14, 2026 May 10, 2027 19 9:00 am 20 1 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 Dated: December 15, 2025 23 24 HN A. MENDEZ. SENIOR UNITED S4ATES DISTRICT JUDGE 26 27 28 S.L. v. County of Trinity, et al.