STIPULATION AND ORDER CONTINUING THE DECEMBER 11, 2013 CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

JENNIFER L. THURSTON, Magistrate Judge.

The parties jointly submit this Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Continuing the December 11, 2013 Case Management Conference in light of the following facts:

1. The following Defendants have filed motions to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint: Lucile Salter Packard Children's Hospital at Stanford, John Stirling, the County of Santa Clara, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, and Christopher Harris. The motions to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint were set for hearing on October 31, 2013, but the Court vacated the hearing on Defendants' motions to dismiss and ordered the motions submitted.

2. The Court has not yet issued rulings on the motions. As such, the case is not yet at issue as to Defendants Lucile Salter Packard Children's Hospital at Stanford, John Stirling, the County of Santa Clara, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, and Christopher Harris.

3. Further, on June 18 and 26, 2013, the Superior Court for the County of Kern held hearings on petitions by Plaintiff Christine Deeths and the County of Santa Clara for disclosure of juvenile records pursuant to California Welfare and Institutions Code section 827. The Court granted the petitions, subject to an in camera review of the records and a release of the records subject to a protective order. The Court, however, has not released the juvenile records. Counsel for the County of Santa Clara has twice attempted to determine the status of the release of the juvenile records but has not received a response from the Superior Court.

4. The pending motions to dismiss may result in some Defendants and claims being dismissed from this action. Moreover, the juvenile records from the Superior Court for the County of Kern are relevant to the issues in this action and will impact the parties' ability to: (a) summarize the factual and legal contentions at issue in this case; and (b) propose a discovery plan and schedule, including an assessment of the types and number of expert witnesses that might be needed in this case. Because the operative facts of the case have arisen out of the juvenile dependency proceedings involving Plaintiff's children, the associated court files and related records, presently unavailable to the parties, form the bedrock of relevant evidence. Thus, for all parties concerned, discovery cannot begin until these records are obtained through the juvenile dependency court.

Accordingly, the parties stipulate to continue the Case Management Conference to February 5, 2014.

I hereby attest that I have on file all holograph signatures for any signatures indicated by a "conformed" signature (/S/) within this efiled document.

ORDER

Before the Court is the stipulation of the parties seeking to continue the scheduling conference. (Doc. 72) The stipulation is based, in part, on the fact that the motion to dismiss the second amended complaint is pending. Id. at 1. Likewise, the parties note that the Kern County Juvenile Court, though having granted the Petition for Disclosure of Juvenile Records (Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 827), has not yet disclosed the records pending an in camera review.

Based upon the stipulation, the Court finds good cause to continue the scheduling conference to allow the order on the motion to dismiss to be issued. However, the Court does not find good cause exists based upon the failure to receive the juvenile records. Indeed, discovery has not yet been opened so receiving these records during the discovery period, imposes no prejudice and, given the Kern County Superior Court has had the review pending since June 2013, it is unknown when that review will occur. Therefore, the Court ORDERS:

1. The stipulation to continue the scheduling conference is GRANTED:

2. The scheduling conference is CONTINUED from December 11, 2013 to February 5, 2013 at 9:00 a.m. The parties SHALL file their joint statement no later than January 29, 2013.

IT IS SO ORDERED.