STIPULATION AND (PROPOSED) ORDER RE: DEPOSITIONS OF EXPERT AND OTHER WITNESSES

EDMUND F. BRENNAN, Magistrate Judge.

ALL PARTIES, THROUGH THEIR RESPECTIVE COUNSEL OF RECORD, HEREBY STIPULATE as follows:

This case was filed on March 3, 2014. (Doc. 2). Defendants Answered on April 14, 2014 (Doc. 8). The Pretrial Scheduling Order was entered on May 27, 2014. (Doc. 14). The Order to Amend Scheduling Order to Continue Discovery/Motion Deadlines, Pretrial Conference, and Trial was entered on August 27, 2014 (Doc. 26). Currently, discovery is scheduled to close on (and all discovery motions must be heard by) November 7, 2014. Expert Discovery is scheduled to close on November 14, 2014. Trial is scheduled for June 2, 2015. (Doc. 26).

On October 14, 2014, Plaintiff noticed for October 28, 2014 the following depositions:

On October 27, 2014, Defendants informed Plaintiff that they would not produce Officer Gutierrez without Plaintiff serving him with a subpoena because Defendants contend he is not a "managing agent" of CHP.

Defendants further state with respect to this witness: Defendants also informed Plaintiff that Defendants were cancelling the previously noticed October 28, 2014 deposition of the PMK on "take-downs." As to the PMK deposition, Defendants position was that they required more time to prepare a PMK deponent to testify due to Plaintiff's statement in his October 22, 2014 Plaintiff's Expert Disclosures that he "reserves the right to elicit expert testimony from . . . all Persons Most Knowledgeable under Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(b)(6) identified by Defendants. . . ." Defendants said they would produce the PMK witness noticed for October 28th at a mutually agreeable date in November, 2014 and offered to stipulate to extend time to November 30, 2014 to conduct that deposition. An existing Order (Doc. 36) allows Plaintiff to depose four other PMK witnesses in the same timeframe. If Plaintiff agreed to that, Defendant also agreed to stipulate to the same time extension to depose Officer Gutierriez, and also to produce Officer Gutierriez at a mutually agreeable date during that time period pursuant to notice only without a subpoena.

Additionally, due to scheduling conflicts for both counsel and the witnesses, the parties will be unable to complete expert depositions prior to the expert discovery cut-off date of November 14, 2014.

Defendants have not yet received Plaintiff's medical records from the Sacramento Veterans Administration Hospital pursuant to their subpoena. That is because that facility required an authorization from Plaintiff, which Plaintiff has already provided to Defendants' subpoena service. Pursuant to the Court's Order re Plaintiff's Motion to Quash (Doc. 29, 3:1-11), Defendants have been unable to review Plaintiff's other medical records, as they are required to keep them sealed until they jointly review them with Plaintiff's counsel. As the V.A. records constitute the majority of Plaintiff's medical records, the parties are waiting for the V.A. records before performing the joint review. Defendant's counsel states he will not be in a position to determine which treating physicians, if any, to depose or to properly conduct such depositions until they have a reasonable opportunity to review the medical records.

Accordingly, the parties stipulate that the parties may complete non-medical expert depositions by no later than November 30, 2014. Mr. Clark's deposition is currently scheduled for November 20, 2014. The parties also stipulate to extend the deadline for medical expert depositions only to December 31, 2014. Finally, the parties stipulate that Plaintiff may depose the PMK on "take-downs" and may depose Officer Gutierrez by no later than November 30, 2014.

All other dates in this matter shall remain unchanged.

(PROPOSED) ORDER

Pursuant to stipulation of the parties and good cause appearing therefore, IT IS SO ORDERED.