Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

CLAIR v. SCHLACHTER, 2:13-CV-00804-KJM-EFB. (2016)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20160519a43 Visitors: 8
Filed: May 18, 2016
Latest Update: May 18, 2016
Summary: JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER TO GRANT LEAVE TO DEPOSE DR. VICTORIA PICKERING AND LINDA STRICKLAND BEYOND THE MAY 15, 2016 DISCOVERY CUTOFF KIMBERLY J. MUELLER , District Judge . Pursuant to Local Rule 143, 144, 230 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 29, the parties submit this Joint Stipulation and Proposed Order to Continue the May 15, 2016 discovery deadline for the limited purpose of deposing Dr. Victoria Pickering and Linda Strickland. 1. On April 4, 2016, the Court issued an order ext
More

JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER TO GRANT LEAVE TO DEPOSE DR. VICTORIA PICKERING AND LINDA STRICKLAND BEYOND THE MAY 15, 2016 DISCOVERY CUTOFF

Pursuant to Local Rule 143, 144, 230 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 29, the parties submit this Joint Stipulation and Proposed Order to Continue the May 15, 2016 discovery deadline for the limited purpose of deposing Dr. Victoria Pickering and Linda Strickland.

1. On April 4, 2016, the Court issued an order extending the discovery deadline to May 15, 2016.

2. Since the Court's order extending the deadline, the parties have worked diligently to locate and depose Dr. Pickering and Ms. Strickland.

3. Dr. Pickering was previously on leave from her employment at Mule Creek State Prison.

4. Throughout March of 2016, the parties attempted to work with the litigation coordinator at Mule Creek State Prison, Desiree Azevedo, to determine when Dr. Pickering would return to work and whether the parties could schedule her deposition.

5. Despite repeated attempts to accommodate Dr. Pickering's schedule, the parties were informed that Dr. Pickering felt it would not be in her best interest to participate in a deposition until she returned from work in June of 2016.

6. Following Dr. Pickering's response, the parties proposed taking Dr. Pickering's deposition by written questions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 31.

7. On March 11, 2016, Ms. Azevedo responded by inquiring as to whether the deposition by written questions could be conducted over the telephone.

8. On March 14, 2016, the parties informed Ms. Azevedo that there was no objection to the deposition being conducted telephonically.

9. On March 15, 2016, Ms. Azevedo responded that Dr. Pickering did not have access to her case notes and that "it would probably be best to wait to schedule the deposition once she is cleared to return to work."

10. Following the Court's April 4, 2016 order, the parties followed up with Ms. Azevedo regarding Dr. Pickering's availability.

11. Ms. Azevedo informed the parties that Dr. Pickering would be available for deposition on May 13, 2016.

12. The parties agreed on this dates and Dr. Pickering's deposition was scheduled for May 13, 2016. See Exhibit A.

13. On May 10, 2016, Ms. Azevedo informed the parties that Dr. Pickering had to reschedule her deposition due to a conflict.

14. Both parties agree that Dr. Pickering's deposition is necessary to fully evaluate each side's respective case.

15. The parties, Ms. Azevedo and Dr. Pickering have tentatively agreed on May 19, 2016 as an alternative date for her deposition at Mule Creek State Prison, subject to the Court's approval.

16. On November 18, 2015, Plaintiff served a deposition subpoena on Linda Strickland, a former investigator at the Department of Consumer Affairs.

17. On December 11, 2015, Plaintiff was informed that Ms. Strickland no longer worked at the Department of Consumer Affairs.

18. Since December 11, 2015, Plaintiff has diligently searched for Ms. Strickland throughout California.

19. The parties agreed to schedule Mrs. Strickland's deposition for May 9, 2016, provided she could be located and served with a deposition subpoena.

20. On April 29, 2016, Plaintiff's process server found the correct Linda Strickland living in Galt, California.

21. On April 29, 2016, Plaintiff's process server was informed by Plaintiff's husband that Linda was in San Diego caring for her elderly mother. Ms. Strickland's husband refused service of the deposition subpoena as well. See Exhibit B.

22. Between May 1 and May 6, 2016, Plaintiff's counsel Edward Gaus called the Strickland's home 5 times in an effort to attempt to speak with someone there regarding Ms. Strickland's availability. He never received a return phone call.

23. Both parties agree that the deposition of Ms. Strickland is directly relevant to the issues in this case and is necessary to each side's full evaluation of their respective case.

24. Subject to the Court's approval, the parties will continue to attempt to contact Ms. Strickland to determine an agreeable date to schedule her deposition as soon as is practicable for all interested parties.

For the foregoing reasons, the parties respectfully request an order granting leave for the parties to conduct the depositions of Dr. Pickering and Linda Strickland beyond the May 15, 2016 discovery deadline.

ORDER

Pursuant to the parties' Joint Stipulation to Allow Limited Discovery Beyond the May 15, 2016 discovery deadline, ECF No. 69, the court GRANTS the parties' request to conduct the depositions of Dr. Victoria Pickering and Linda Strickland beyond the May 15, 2016 discovery deadline, nunc pro tunc. The depositions shall be conducted as soon as practicable without requiring any other change in the schedule of the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer