STIPULATION AND ORDER RE DEPOSITIONS BY ORAL EXAMINATION

BARBARA A. McAULIFFE, Magistrate Judge.

The Parties stipulated to modifying the deposition limits provided by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30 in their Joint Scheduling Report (Doc. 114, ¶ 6(e)). Their stipulation was not ratified in the Joint Scheduling Order (Doc. 117). Their stipulation is reasonable and necessary given that the conduct Plaintiffs complain about occurred over the course of more than six years and was witnessed by numerous individuals. Indeed, Plaintiffs disclosed 51 witnesses in their initial disclosures and Defendants California Department of Developmental Services, Douglas Loehner, and Michael Flores disclosed 57 witnesses. The Parties request that the Court enter the following stipulation as an Order:

The Parties stipulate that notwithstanding Rule 30(d), Plaintiffs Arcure, Cook, and Fessenden may notice a combined total of 21 depositions. The Parties stipulate that Defendants may notice a combined total of 21 depositions. Of these 21 depositions, Defendant Bradley may notice a total of 2 depositions. Further, the Parties stipulate that the Parties may notice Extended Depositions (a deposition of 12 hours over the course of two days) without leave of court as follows:

Plaintiffs Arcure, Cook, and Fessenden may notice eight Extended Depositions; and

Defendants DDS, Loehner, and Flores may notice eight Extended Depositions.

Defendants may stipulate to re-allocate the number of depositions amongst themselves without leave of court, and without approval or agreement from Plaintiffs.

The Parties may seek leave of court to notice additional depositions in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

SO STIPULATED.

ORDER

The Court having reviewed the foregoing Stipulation, and for good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

Plaintiffs Arcure, Cook, and Fessenden may notice a combined total of 21 depositions. Defendants may notice a combined total of 21 depositions. Of these 21 depositions, Defendant Bradley may notice a total of 2 depositions. Further, the Parties may notice Extended Depositions (a deposition of 12 hours over the course of two days) without leave of court as follows:

1. Plaintiffs Arcure, Cook, and Fessenden may notice eight Extended Depositions;

2. Defendants DDS, Loehner, and Flores may notice eight Extended Depositions;

3. Defendants may stipulate to re-allocate the number of depositions amongst themselves without leave of court, and without approval or agreement from Plaintiffs;

4. The Parties may seek leave of court to notice additional depositions in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Notwithstanding the stipulation, the Court is concerned with the number of depositions, the expense, and the potential scheduling difficulties. The parties are directed to meet and confer, with at least one telephonic meet and confer, and provide to the Court a proposed schedule for the anticipated depositions. If the parties are uncertain of all persons/entities who/which will be deposed, the parties shall decide upon and propose a schedule for the first 10 depositions for each side. (Each side must identify and propose a schedule for at least 10 persons/entities which that side wishes to depose.) The proposed schedule shall be provided to the Court in a status report filed no later than September 26, 2014.

IT IS SO ORDERED.