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