1 T. Kennedy Helm, IV (SBN 282319) Kevin G. Little (SBN 149818) HELM LAW OFFICE, PC Michelle L. Tostenrude (SBN 290121) 2 644 40th Street, Suite 305 LAW OFFICE OF KEVIN G. LITTLE Oakland, California 94609 Post Office Box 8656 3 Telephone: (510) 350-7517 Fresno, California 93747 Facsimile: (510) 350-7359 Telephone: (559) 342-5800 4 E-mail: kennedy@helmlawoffice.com Facsimile: (559) 242-2400 E-Mail: kevin@kevinglittle.com 5 Attorney for Plaintiffs A.G. and F.G., by and E-mail: michelletostenrude@yahoo.com through their guardian ad litem, Johana 6 Yolanda Corral Galvan Attorneys for Plaintiff Rosa Madrid
7 Gary L. Logan (SBN 90558) Lindsey M. Romano (SBN 337600) Alan J. Mish (SBN 105771 Kendra N. Stark (PRO HAC VICE) 8 LAW OFFICES OF GORDON REES SCULLY LEBEAU • THELEN, LLP MANSUKHANI, LLP 9 5001 East Commercenter Drive, Suite 300 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 Post Office Box 12092 San Francisco, CA 94111 10 Bakersfield, California 93389-2092 Telephone: (415) 875-4126 Telephone:(661) 325-8962 Facsimile: (415) 986-8054 11 Facsimile: (661) 325-1127 E-mail: lromano@grsm.com E-mail: glogan@lebeauthelen.com E-mail: kstark@grsm.com 12 E-mail: amish@lebeauthelen.com Attorneys for Defendants Wellpath, LLC 13 Attorneys for Defendants County of Tulare, and Alla Liberstein, M.D. Jose Sanchez Perez, James Dillon, and Rodrigo 14 DeOchoa
15 Peter G. Bertling (SBN 121602) Jemma Allison Parker Saunders (SBN 227962) 16 BERTLING LAW GROUP 21 E. Canon Perdido Street, Suite 204B 17 Santa Barbara, California 93101 Telephone: (805) 879-7558 18 Facsimile: (805) 869-1597 E-mail: peter@bertlinglawgroup.com 19 E-mail: jemma@bertlinglawgroup.com
20 Attorneys for Defendant Andrew P. Ho, M.D.
21 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
22 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
23 FRESNO DIVISION
24 A.G., a minor, by and through her guardian ad ) Case No. 1:23-cv-00500-JLT-SKO litem Johana Yolanda Corral Galvan, ) (Consolidating Case No. 1:24-cv-00150-JLT- 25 individually and as co-successor in interest to ) SKO) ) 26 Decedent Francisco Ponce, Jr.; F.G., a minor, ) by and through her guardian ad litem Johana ) 27 Yolanda Corral Galvan, individually and as ) STIPULATION AND ORDER TO ) 1 co-successor in interest to Decedent Francisco ) MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER Ponce, Jr.; individually, ) 2 ) (Doc. 56) ) 3 vs. Plaintiffs, ) ) 4 ) COUNTY OF TULARE, a public entity; ) 5 Correctional Deputy Trainee JOSE ) ) 6 S JAA MNC ESH E DZ IL P LE OR NE ;Z C; oC ro rer cre tic oti no an l a Dl eD pe up tyu ty ) )
RODRIGO DEOCHOA; WELLPATH, LLC, ) 7 a Delaware Corporation; ANDREW P. HO, ) 8 MD; ALLA LIBERSTEIN, MD; and DOES ) ) 7–50, jointly and severally, ) 9 ) Defendants. ) 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 1 Plaintiffs A.G. and F.G., by and through their counsel, T. Kennedy Helm, IV, of Helm Law 2 Office, PC; Plaintiff Rosa Madrid, by and through her counsel, Kevin G. Little and Michelle L. 3 Tostenrude of the Law Office of Kevin G. Little; Defendants County of Tulare, Jose Sanchez 4 Perez, James Dillon, and Rodrigo DeOchoa, by and through their counsel, Gary L. Logan, of 5 Lebeau Thelen, LLP; Defendants Wellpath, LLC and Alla Liberstein, M.D., by and through their 6 counsel Lindsey M. Romano and Kendra N. Stark of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP; and 7 Defendant Andrew P. Ho, M.D., by and through his counsel Peter G. Bertling and Jemma Parker 8 Saunders of Bertling Law Group; hereby respectfully stipulate and request as follows: 9 RECITALS 10 A. When an act must be done within a specified time, the Court may, for good cause, extend 11 the time with or without motion if the court acts, or a request is made, before the original 12 time expires. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A). With respect to an order setting forth the Court’s 13 pretrial schedule, the “court may modify the pretrial schedule ‘if it cannot be reasonably 14 met despite the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.’” Johnson v. Mammoth 15 Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). The Parties respectfully submit that 16 good cause exists to continue the deadline for completion of non-expert (fact) discovery 17 and successive deadlines. 18 B. Currently, the cutoff for non-expert (fact) discovery is November 6, 2024. ECF No. 37. 19 C. Since the last modification of the scheduling order on March 5, 2024, the Parties have made 20 substantial progress in discovery and amendment of the pleadings. On March 7, 2025, 21 Plaintiffs A.G. and F.G. served responses to the County Defendants’ Rule 33 22 Interrogatories and Rule 34 Requests; and on April 4, 2024, the County Defendants served 23 responses to Plaintiffs A.G.’s and F.G’s Rule 34 requests. Meanwhile, counsel for Plaintiffs 24 A.G. and F.G. and counsel for Defendants Wellpath, LLC; Liberstein; and Ho met and 25 conferred regarding perceived deficiencies in the First Amended Complaint and 26 successfully avoided motion practice by stipulating to Plaintiffs’ filing of a Second 27 Amended Complaint. Accordingly, on May 6, 2024, Plaintiffs obtained leave from this 1 Court to file a Second Amended Complaint, ECF No. 48, which Plaintiffs filed that day. 2 ECF No. 49. On May 9, 2024, the County Defendants answered the Second Amended 3 Complaint. ECF No. 50. On May 20, 2024, Defendant Ho, who the same day sought and 4 received the Court’s consent for substitution of counsel, ECF Nos. 51–52, answered the 5 Second Amended Complaint, ECF No. 53, as did Defendants Wellpath, LLC, and 6 Liberstein. ECF No. 54. 7 D. In addition to amending the pleadings while avoiding motion practice, the Parties have also 8 continued to engage in written discovery. Plaintiffs A.G. and F.G. have provided responses 9 and responsive documents to the County Defendants’ requests for production of 10 documents, most recently on July 19, 2024, and have served requests for production of 11 documents on the County Defendants, the Wellpath Defendants, and Defendant Ho, and 12 Plaintiffs A.G. and F.G. 13 A. Nevertheless, counsel for all Plaintiffs; counsel for the Tulare County Defendants; counsel 14 for Defendants Wellpath, LLC and Liberstein; and counsel for Defendant Ho, do not 15 believe that fact discovery can be completed by the current deadline of November 6, 2024, 16 due to the impacted schedules of the Parties’ counsel due to deadlines in earlier-filed 17 matters between now and then. First, counsel for Defendant Ho, who substituted into this 18 case on May 20, 2024 and obtained the case file last month, has trials in September and 19 October 2024; specifically, on September 21, 2024 in Trejo v. County of Imperial, et al., 20 No. 20-cv-01465-LAB-MSB (S.D. Cal.), and on October 22, 2024 in the matter of Snider 21 v. County of Merced, No. 1:20-cv-00409-JLT-SAB (E.D. Cal.). Second, counsel for 22 Plaintiffs A.G. and F.G must take depositions during September and October 2024 in 23 Mackie v. County of Santa Cruz, et al., No. 4:19-cv-02096-YGR (N.D. Cal.) (non-fatal 24 shooting case); and K.C. v. Alameda County, et al., No. 4:22-cv-01817-DMR (N.D. Cal.) 25 (in-custody death case); and must also complete fact-discovery by October 7, 2024 in both 26 Webb v. County of San Bernardino, et al., No. 5:22-cv-01448-SSS-SP (C.D. Cal.) (in- 27 custody death case) and in D.B., et al. v. City of Stockton, et al., No. 2:21-cv-02154 (E.D. 1 Cal.) (fatal police shooting case); oppose a motion for summary judgment on October 9, 2 2024 in Garcia v. County of Stanislaus, et al., No. 1:21-cv-00331-MCE-SCR (E.D. Cal.) 3 (excessive-force case); complete expert disclosures by October 14, 2024 in Webb; 4 complete rebuttal expert disclosures by October 25, 2024 in Servin v. San Joaquin County, 5 et al., No. 2:20-cv-02445-WBS-CSK (E.D.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 T. Kennedy Helm, IV (SBN 282319) Kevin G. Little (SBN 149818) HELM LAW OFFICE, PC Michelle L. Tostenrude (SBN 290121) 2 644 40th Street, Suite 305 LAW OFFICE OF KEVIN G. LITTLE Oakland, California 94609 Post Office Box 8656 3 Telephone: (510) 350-7517 Fresno, California 93747 Facsimile: (510) 350-7359 Telephone: (559) 342-5800 4 E-mail: kennedy@helmlawoffice.com Facsimile: (559) 242-2400 E-Mail: kevin@kevinglittle.com 5 Attorney for Plaintiffs A.G. and F.G., by and E-mail: michelletostenrude@yahoo.com through their guardian ad litem, Johana 6 Yolanda Corral Galvan Attorneys for Plaintiff Rosa Madrid
7 Gary L. Logan (SBN 90558) Lindsey M. Romano (SBN 337600) Alan J. Mish (SBN 105771 Kendra N. Stark (PRO HAC VICE) 8 LAW OFFICES OF GORDON REES SCULLY LEBEAU • THELEN, LLP MANSUKHANI, LLP 9 5001 East Commercenter Drive, Suite 300 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 Post Office Box 12092 San Francisco, CA 94111 10 Bakersfield, California 93389-2092 Telephone: (415) 875-4126 Telephone:(661) 325-8962 Facsimile: (415) 986-8054 11 Facsimile: (661) 325-1127 E-mail: lromano@grsm.com E-mail: glogan@lebeauthelen.com E-mail: kstark@grsm.com 12 E-mail: amish@lebeauthelen.com Attorneys for Defendants Wellpath, LLC 13 Attorneys for Defendants County of Tulare, and Alla Liberstein, M.D. Jose Sanchez Perez, James Dillon, and Rodrigo 14 DeOchoa
15 Peter G. Bertling (SBN 121602) Jemma Allison Parker Saunders (SBN 227962) 16 BERTLING LAW GROUP 21 E. Canon Perdido Street, Suite 204B 17 Santa Barbara, California 93101 Telephone: (805) 879-7558 18 Facsimile: (805) 869-1597 E-mail: peter@bertlinglawgroup.com 19 E-mail: jemma@bertlinglawgroup.com
20 Attorneys for Defendant Andrew P. Ho, M.D.
21 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
22 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
23 FRESNO DIVISION
24 A.G., a minor, by and through her guardian ad ) Case No. 1:23-cv-00500-JLT-SKO litem Johana Yolanda Corral Galvan, ) (Consolidating Case No. 1:24-cv-00150-JLT- 25 individually and as co-successor in interest to ) SKO) ) 26 Decedent Francisco Ponce, Jr.; F.G., a minor, ) by and through her guardian ad litem Johana ) 27 Yolanda Corral Galvan, individually and as ) STIPULATION AND ORDER TO ) 1 co-successor in interest to Decedent Francisco ) MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER Ponce, Jr.; individually, ) 2 ) (Doc. 56) ) 3 vs. Plaintiffs, ) ) 4 ) COUNTY OF TULARE, a public entity; ) 5 Correctional Deputy Trainee JOSE ) ) 6 S JAA MNC ESH E DZ IL P LE OR NE ;Z C; oC ro rer cre tic oti no an l a Dl eD pe up tyu ty ) )
RODRIGO DEOCHOA; WELLPATH, LLC, ) 7 a Delaware Corporation; ANDREW P. HO, ) 8 MD; ALLA LIBERSTEIN, MD; and DOES ) ) 7–50, jointly and severally, ) 9 ) Defendants. ) 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 1 Plaintiffs A.G. and F.G., by and through their counsel, T. Kennedy Helm, IV, of Helm Law 2 Office, PC; Plaintiff Rosa Madrid, by and through her counsel, Kevin G. Little and Michelle L. 3 Tostenrude of the Law Office of Kevin G. Little; Defendants County of Tulare, Jose Sanchez 4 Perez, James Dillon, and Rodrigo DeOchoa, by and through their counsel, Gary L. Logan, of 5 Lebeau Thelen, LLP; Defendants Wellpath, LLC and Alla Liberstein, M.D., by and through their 6 counsel Lindsey M. Romano and Kendra N. Stark of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP; and 7 Defendant Andrew P. Ho, M.D., by and through his counsel Peter G. Bertling and Jemma Parker 8 Saunders of Bertling Law Group; hereby respectfully stipulate and request as follows: 9 RECITALS 10 A. When an act must be done within a specified time, the Court may, for good cause, extend 11 the time with or without motion if the court acts, or a request is made, before the original 12 time expires. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A). With respect to an order setting forth the Court’s 13 pretrial schedule, the “court may modify the pretrial schedule ‘if it cannot be reasonably 14 met despite the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.’” Johnson v. Mammoth 15 Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). The Parties respectfully submit that 16 good cause exists to continue the deadline for completion of non-expert (fact) discovery 17 and successive deadlines. 18 B. Currently, the cutoff for non-expert (fact) discovery is November 6, 2024. ECF No. 37. 19 C. Since the last modification of the scheduling order on March 5, 2024, the Parties have made 20 substantial progress in discovery and amendment of the pleadings. On March 7, 2025, 21 Plaintiffs A.G. and F.G. served responses to the County Defendants’ Rule 33 22 Interrogatories and Rule 34 Requests; and on April 4, 2024, the County Defendants served 23 responses to Plaintiffs A.G.’s and F.G’s Rule 34 requests. Meanwhile, counsel for Plaintiffs 24 A.G. and F.G. and counsel for Defendants Wellpath, LLC; Liberstein; and Ho met and 25 conferred regarding perceived deficiencies in the First Amended Complaint and 26 successfully avoided motion practice by stipulating to Plaintiffs’ filing of a Second 27 Amended Complaint. Accordingly, on May 6, 2024, Plaintiffs obtained leave from this 1 Court to file a Second Amended Complaint, ECF No. 48, which Plaintiffs filed that day. 2 ECF No. 49. On May 9, 2024, the County Defendants answered the Second Amended 3 Complaint. ECF No. 50. On May 20, 2024, Defendant Ho, who the same day sought and 4 received the Court’s consent for substitution of counsel, ECF Nos. 51–52, answered the 5 Second Amended Complaint, ECF No. 53, as did Defendants Wellpath, LLC, and 6 Liberstein. ECF No. 54. 7 D. In addition to amending the pleadings while avoiding motion practice, the Parties have also 8 continued to engage in written discovery. Plaintiffs A.G. and F.G. have provided responses 9 and responsive documents to the County Defendants’ requests for production of 10 documents, most recently on July 19, 2024, and have served requests for production of 11 documents on the County Defendants, the Wellpath Defendants, and Defendant Ho, and 12 Plaintiffs A.G. and F.G. 13 A. Nevertheless, counsel for all Plaintiffs; counsel for the Tulare County Defendants; counsel 14 for Defendants Wellpath, LLC and Liberstein; and counsel for Defendant Ho, do not 15 believe that fact discovery can be completed by the current deadline of November 6, 2024, 16 due to the impacted schedules of the Parties’ counsel due to deadlines in earlier-filed 17 matters between now and then. First, counsel for Defendant Ho, who substituted into this 18 case on May 20, 2024 and obtained the case file last month, has trials in September and 19 October 2024; specifically, on September 21, 2024 in Trejo v. County of Imperial, et al., 20 No. 20-cv-01465-LAB-MSB (S.D. Cal.), and on October 22, 2024 in the matter of Snider 21 v. County of Merced, No. 1:20-cv-00409-JLT-SAB (E.D. Cal.). Second, counsel for 22 Plaintiffs A.G. and F.G must take depositions during September and October 2024 in 23 Mackie v. County of Santa Cruz, et al., No. 4:19-cv-02096-YGR (N.D. Cal.) (non-fatal 24 shooting case); and K.C. v. Alameda County, et al., No. 4:22-cv-01817-DMR (N.D. Cal.) 25 (in-custody death case); and must also complete fact-discovery by October 7, 2024 in both 26 Webb v. County of San Bernardino, et al., No. 5:22-cv-01448-SSS-SP (C.D. Cal.) (in- 27 custody death case) and in D.B., et al. v. City of Stockton, et al., No. 2:21-cv-02154 (E.D. 1 Cal.) (fatal police shooting case); oppose a motion for summary judgment on October 9, 2 2024 in Garcia v. County of Stanislaus, et al., No. 1:21-cv-00331-MCE-SCR (E.D. Cal.) 3 (excessive-force case); complete expert disclosures by October 14, 2024 in Webb; 4 complete rebuttal expert disclosures by October 25, 2024 in Servin v. San Joaquin County, 5 et al., No. 2:20-cv-02445-WBS-CSK (E.D. Cal.) (excessive-force case); and complete 6 rebuttal expert disclosures by October 28, 2024 in Webb. 7 B. Given the foregoing; as well as the desire of counsel for the Parties to be able to exercise 8 professional courtesies by reasonably accommodating the schedules of the deponents and 9 counsel as much as is reasonably possible, and the need to set depositions on mutually 10 available dates, including the anticipated difficulties with doing this—given the number of 11 counsel’s schedules and potential depositions involved—the undersigned counsel 12 reasonably estimate the need for, and, thus, respectfully request, that an additional 13 approximately 90 days be added to the deadline for the cutoff of fact discovery. 14 C. Therefore, the Parties agree that a stipulated extension of approximately 90 days of the 15 cutoff for fact discovery will allow the Parties to complete fact discovery. 16 D. The Parties further agree that such a stipulated extension of 90 days of the cutoff for fact 17 discovery will necessitate an approximate 90-day extension of each of the remaining 18 pretrial dates, and of the trial date. 19 STIPULATIONS 20 Given the foregoing, and the current approaching non-expert discovery cutoff of November 21 6, 2024 (ECF No. 37), the Parties respectfully submit that good cause exists to continue the non- 22 expert discovery cutoff and the subsequent case deadlines by approximately 90 days each: 23 Matter Current Deadline (ECF No. 37) New Deadline 24 Non-Expert Discovery Cutoff November 6, 2024 February 5, 2025 25 Expert Disclosures December 11, 2024 March 12, 2025 26 Rebuttal Expert Disclosures January 15, 2025 April 16, 2025 27 1 Expert Discovery Cutoff February 17, 2025 May 19, 2025 2 Non-Dispositive Motion March 17, 2025 June 17, 2025 3 Deadline-Filing 4 Non-Dispositive Motion April 9, 2025 July 9, 2025 5 Deadline-Hearing 6 Dispositive Motion Deadline- April 21, 2025 July 21, 2025 7 Hearing 8 Deadline to Provide Proposed May 14, 2025 August 13, 2025 9 Settlement Conference Dates: 10 Pre-Trial Conference June 16, 2025 at 1:30 p.m. September 15, 2025 at 11 1:30 p.m. 12 Trial August 12, 2025 at 8:30 a.m. November 11, 2025, at 13 8:30 a.m. 14 IT IS SO STIPULATED, THROUGH COUNSEL OF RECORD. 15 Respectfully Submitted, 16 Dated: September 3, 2024 HELM LAW OFFICE, PC 17
18 /s/ T. Kennedy Helm, IV 19 T. KENNEDY HELM, IV Attorney for Plaintiffs A.G. and F.G., by and through 20 Their guardian ad litem, Johana Yolanda Corral Galvan
21 Dated: September 3, 2024 LAW OFFICE OF KEVIN G. LITTLE 22 /s/ Kevin G. Little* By: KEVIN G. LITTLE 23 MICHELLE G. TOSTENRUDE 24 Attorneys for Plaintiff Rosa Madrid
25 Dated: September 3, 2024 LEBEAU THELEN LLP 26 /s/ Gary L. Logan* By: GARY L. LOGAN 27 Attorneys for Tulare County Defendants 1 Dated: September 3, 2024 GORDON REES SCULLY MANASUKHANI, LLP 2 /s/ Kendra N. Stark* 3 By: LINDSEY M. ROMANO KENDRA N. STARK 4 Attorneys for Defendants Wellpath, LLC and 5 Alla Liberstein, MD
6 Dated: September 3, 2024 BERTLING LAW GROUP 7 /s/ Jemma Parker Saunders* 8 By: PETER G. BERTLING JEMMA PARKER SAUNDERS 9 Attorneys for Defendant Andrew P. Ho, MD
10 *Pursuant to Local Rule 131(e), Messrs. Logan and Little, and Mses. Stark and Saunders each 11 consented that this document be filed by CM/ECF. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 1 ORDER 2 The Court, having considered the Parties’ stipulation (Doc. 56), and good cause appearing, 3 rules as follows: 4 The Court finds that the Parties have shown good cause for the relief their Stipulation 5 requests. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the existing Scheduling Order (Doc. 37) is MODIFIED 6 as follows: 7 Matter Current Deadline New Deadline 8 Non-Expert Discovery Cutoff November 6, 2024 February 5, 2025 9 Expert Disclosures December 11, 2024 March 12, 2025 10 Rebuttal Expert Disclosures January 15, 2025 April 16, 2025 11 Expert Discovery Cutoff February 17, 2025 May 19, 2025 12 Non-Dispositive Motion March 5, 20251 June 17, 2025 13 Deadline-Filing 14 Non-Dispositive Motion April 9, 2025 July 23, 20252 15 Deadline-Hearing 16 Dispositive Motion Deadline - March 17, 2025 June 16, 20233 17 Filing 18 Dispositive Motion Deadline- April 21, 2025 July 21, 2025 19 Hearing 20 Deadline to Provide Proposed May 14, 2025 August 20, 2025, or 90 21 Settlement Conference Dates: days before trial, 22 whichever is later 23 24 25 1 This deadline was not specified in the parties’ March 5, 2024, Scheduling Order (see Doc. 37) but is set in accordance 26 with this Court’s Local Rules. See E.D. Cal. L.R. 230. 2 This date has been adjusted in accordance with this Court’s Local Rules. See E.D. Cal. L.R. 230. 27 3 This deadline was not specified in the parties’ stipulation (see Doc. 56) but is set in accordance with this Court’s Local Rules. See E.D. Cal. L.R. 230. 1 Pre-Trial Conference June 16, 2025 at 1:30 p.m. September 15, 2025 at 2 1:30 p.m. 3 Trial August 12, 2025 at 8:30 a.m. November 18, 2025, at 4 8:30 a.m.4 5
6 IT IS SO ORDERED.
7 Dated: September 4, 2024 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . 8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 4 This date has been adjusted due to Court holiday.