M.P., a minor, by and through his guardian ad litem, Roy McCollum, individually and as Successor in interest to Decedent BRITTANY CAITLIN McCULLUM; and ROY McCOLLOM, individually v. COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN, a public entity; San Joaquin County Sheriff PATRICK WITHROW; San Joaquin County Sheriff's Office Correctional Officers MARIO PENA, KAYLA LONG, JAMES FARR, PABLO MARMALEJO, and Sergeant ERIC SESSIONS; San Joaquin County Physician Manager MORIS SENEGOR; San Joaquin County CHC Chief Clinician CYNTHIA BORGES-ODELL

E.D. California

M.P., a minor, by and through his guardian ad litem, Roy McCollum, individually and as Successor in interest to Decedent BRITTANY CAITLIN McCULLUM; and ROY McCOLLOM, individually v. COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN, a public entity; San Joaquin County Sheriff PATRICK WITHROW; San Joaquin County Sheriff's Office Correctional Officers MARIO PENA, KAYLA LONG, JAMES FARR, PABLO MARMALEJO, and Sergeant ERIC SESSIONS; San Joaquin County Physician Manager MORIS SENEGOR; San Joaquin County CHC Chief Clinician CYNTHIA BORGES-ODELL

DecidedOctober 16, 2025

Docket2:23-cv-00245

StatusUnknown

This text of M.P., a minor, by and through his guardian ad litem, Roy McCollum, individually and as Successor in interest to Decedent BRITTANY CAITLIN McCULLUM; and ROY McCOLLOM, individually v. COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN, a public entity; San Joaquin County Sheriff PATRICK WITHROW; San Joaquin County Sheriff's Office Correctional Officers MARIO PENA, KAYLA LONG, JAMES FARR, PABLO MARMALEJO, and Sergeant ERIC SESSIONS; San Joaquin County Physician Manager MORIS SENEGOR; San Joaquin County CHC Chief Clinician CYNTHIA BORGES-ODELL (M.P., a minor, by and through his guardian ad litem, Roy McCollum, individually and as Successor in interest to Decedent BRITTANY CAITLIN McCULLUM; and ROY McCOLLOM, individually v. COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN, a public entity; San Joaquin County Sheriff PATRICK WITHROW; San Joaquin County Sheriff's Office Correctional Officers MARIO PENA, KAYLA LONG, JAMES FARR, PABLO MARMALEJO, and Sergeant ERIC SESSIONS; San Joaquin County Physician Manager MORIS SENEGOR; San Joaquin County CHC Chief Clinician CYNTHIA BORGES-ODELL) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

M.P., a minor, by and through his guardian ad litem, Roy McCollum, individually and as Successor in interest to Decedent BRITTANY CAITLIN McCULLUM; and ROY McCOLLOM, individually v. COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN, a public entity; San Joaquin County Sheriff PATRICK WITHROW; San Joaquin County Sheriff's Office Correctional Officers MARIO PENA, KAYLA LONG, JAMES FARR, PABLO MARMALEJO, and Sergeant ERIC SESSIONS; San Joaquin County Physician Manager MORIS SENEGOR; San Joaquin County CHC Chief Clinician CYNTHIA BORGES-ODELL, (E.D. Cal. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1|PORTER | SCOTT A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 2 || John R. Whitefleet, SBN 213301 3 jwhitefleet@porterscott.com 2180 Harvard Street, 500 4 Sacramento, California 95815 TEL: 916.929.1481 5 916.927.3706 6 || Attorneys for Defendants COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN, et al. 7 ||T. Kennedy Helm, IV (SBN 282319) HELM LAW OFFICE, PC 8 || 644 40th Street, Suite 305 9 Oakland, California 94609 T: (510) 350-7517 10 ||F: (510) 350-7359 e-mail: kennedy@helmlawoffice.com 11 Sanjay S. Schmidt (SBN 247475) 12 AW OFFICE OF SANJAY S. SCHMIDT 13 1388 Sutter Street, Suite 810 San Francisco, CA 94109 14 ||T: (415) 563-8583 F: (415) 223-9717 15 ||e-mail: ss@sanjayschmidtlaw.com 16 Attorneys for Plaintiffs M.P., a minor, by and through his guardian ad litem, Roy McCollum, et al. 17 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 19 M.P., a minor, by and through his guardian CASE NO. 2:23-cv-00245-KJM-AC 20 |! ad litem, Roy McCollum, individually and as 71 || Successor in interest to Decedent THIRD STIPULATION AND ORDER TO BRITTANY CAITLIN McCULLUM; and EXTEND SCHEDULING ORDER 92 || ROY McCOLLOM,, individually, DEADLINES 23 Plaintiffs, 24 2 COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN, a public 26 || entity; San Joaquin County Sheriff PATRICK WITHROW;; San Joaquin County 27 || Sheriff's Office Correctional Officers MARIO PENA, KAYLA LONG, JAMES 3RD STIP. AND ORDER TO EXTEND SCHEDULING ORDER DEADLINES

1 FARR, PABLO MARMALEJO, and Sergeant ERIC SESSIONS; San Joaquin 2 County Physician Manager MORIS SENEGOR; San Joaquin County CHC Chief 3 Clinician CYNTHIA BORGES-ODELL, MFT; CHC Mental Health Unit Supervisor 4 TEFFANY CALICA; CHC employees PAULA ALEYDA ARAGON DE 5 GONZALEZ, LVN; MARY M. 6 CENDANA, RN; KEVIN TORRES, LVN; MARIE DAGUMAN, LCSW; 7 MARGARITA PALOMERA; RITA MANANQUIL, RN; and County of San 8 Joaquin DOES 1-50, jointly and severally, 9 Defendants. 10 ___________________________________ 11 Plaintiffs M.P. and ROY McCOLLUM (“Plaintiffs”) and the Defendants COUNTY OF SAN 12 JOAQUIN, et al. (collectively, “Defendants”), collectively referred to as “the parties”, by and through 13 their respective counsel of record, hereby stipulate as follows: 14 1. When an act must be done within a specified time, the Court may, for good cause, extend 15 The time with or without motion if the court acts, or a request is made, before the original time expires. 16 Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A). With respect to an order setting forth the Court’s pretrial schedule, “[t]he 17 district court may modify the pretrial schedule ‘if it cannot be reasonably met despite the diligence of the 18 party seeking the amendment.’” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). 19 This is the Parties’ third request for extension of time of the Pretrial Scheduling Order; the first and second 20 requests were granted for good cause. See ECF Nos. 35, 39. 21 2. The parties have made substantial progress in written fact discovery and have started 22 depositions, but recent discovery has shown that more time is needed. On March 28, 2025, Defendants 23 deposed Plaintiff Roy McCollum, father of Brittany McCullum, who completed suicide at the County’s 24 jail. In addition to M.P., Ms. McCullum had another child, E.D., who was adopted and for whom a juvenile 25 dependency case may exists. Defendants contend that such a file is relevant to damages, and the parties 26 need time to meet and confer about obtaining this file pursuant to California Welfare & Institutions Code 27 § 827. In addition, since Plaintiff’s deposition, the parties have continued to meet and confer regarding 1 Plaintiffs’ contention that Defendants have withheld: (1) documents identified on a privilege log related 2 to named parties that should be produced pursuant to the stipulated protective order; and (2) documents— 3 including digital audio files of inmate witness interviews—not on the privilege log. As to (1), because 4 some of the withheld documents pertain to named parties, Plaintiffs need to obtain them well in advance 5 of these named parties’ depositions, to avoid Plaintiffs having to recall them for a second deposition after 6 production of the withheld documents. As to (2), some of the withheld documents are digital audio files 7 containing interviews by County law-enforcement personnel of at least six inmate witnesses to the 8 moments leading up to Brittany McCullum’s suicide. These interviews likely contain relevant information 9 about the actions and inactions of the named Correctional Officers Pena, Long, Farr, Marmalejo, and 10 Sergeant Sessions, who were responsible for Ms. McCullum’s safety. Plaintiffs need to review these 11 digital audio files before the depositions of these party defendants and of the inmate witnesses. Given that 12 one or more of these inmate-witnesses may be in prison, the parties will need to seek leave of court to 13 notice depositions. Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a)(2)(B). Further, Defendants intend to meet and confer about 14 Plaintiffs’ responses to written discovery. Given the foregoing, the parties met and conferred by Zoom on 15 October 1, 2025, and they agree that they require further time to meet and confer about these issues to 16 avoid bringing any discovery dispute before the assigned magistrate. Once the documents have been 17 produced, the depositions of the Correctional Officers and inmate witnesses may be scheduled. 18 3. Moreover, the parties’ counsel’s conflicts in earlier-filed matters preclude the scheduling 19 of further party depositions before the November 14, 2025 cutoff of fact discovery. There are 15 20 individually named County Defendants, and Defendants’ lead trial counsel, who will defend all party 21 depositions, will be occupied from now through November 2025 with trial preparations in Lake v City of 22 Vallejo et al, scheduled to begin trial on December 9, 2025, and to last through December 16, 2025. This 23 has made the undersigned defense counsel unavailable to conduct any depositions during the month of 24 November. Moreover, Plaintiffs’ counsel must finish expert discovery by November 18, 2025, in D.B. v. 25 City of Stockton, et al., No. 2:21-02154-DJC-SCR (E.D. Cal.), and must take party depositions beginning 26 in November 2025, in K.C. v. Alameda County, et al., No. 4:22-cv-01817-DMR (N.D. Cal.). Counsel for 27 the parties have worked together on several cases together, and have one other case together currently, 1 and have always extended professional courtesy to one another with respect to case deadlines. Counsel 2 for the parties wish to continue to do so, particularly with respect to the scheduling of depositions, so that 3 they are scheduled on dates that align with both the deponents’ and counsels’ calendars. In addition to 4 these scheduling issues, Plaintiffs’ co-counsel, Mr. Helm, will undergo in-patient surgery on October 28, 5 2025, with several days in the hospital followed by recovery at home, and Plaintiffs’ co-counsel, Mr. 6 Schmidt, will be taking a pre-paid trip to Europe with his family, from October 30 to November 10, 2025. 7 4. Due to the remaining issues relating to written discovery and the documents that remain 8 outstanding, the number of depositions that need to be taken, and conflicts in earlier-filed matters, the 9 parties cannot reasonably meet the existing schedule despite their diligent efforts. Given counsel’s desire 10 to exercise professional courtesy by setting depositions on dates convenient for parties and their counsel, 11 the undersigned counsel reasonably estimate the need for, and, thus, respectfully request, to extend the 12 discovery deadline and all other dates in the Scheduling Order (ECF No.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1|PORTER | SCOTT A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 2 || John R. Whitefleet, SBN 213301 3 jwhitefleet@porterscott.com 2180 Harvard Street, 500 4 Sacramento, California 95815 TEL: 916.929.1481 5 916.927.3706 6 || Attorneys for Defendants COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN, et al. 7 ||T. Kennedy Helm, IV (SBN 282319) HELM LAW OFFICE, PC 8 || 644 40th Street, Suite 305 9 Oakland, California 94609 T: (510) 350-7517 10 ||F: (510) 350-7359 e-mail: kennedy@helmlawoffice.com 11 Sanjay S. Schmidt (SBN 247475) 12 AW OFFICE OF SANJAY S. SCHMIDT 13 1388 Sutter Street, Suite 810 San Francisco, CA 94109 14 ||T: (415) 563-8583 F: (415) 223-9717 15 ||e-mail: ss@sanjayschmidtlaw.com 16 Attorneys for Plaintiffs M.P., a minor, by and through his guardian ad litem, Roy McCollum, et al. 17 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 19 M.P., a minor, by and through his guardian CASE NO. 2:23-cv-00245-KJM-AC 20 |! ad litem, Roy McCollum, individually and as 71 || Successor in interest to Decedent THIRD STIPULATION AND ORDER TO BRITTANY CAITLIN McCULLUM; and EXTEND SCHEDULING ORDER 92 || ROY McCOLLOM,, individually, DEADLINES 23 Plaintiffs, 24 2 COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN, a public 26 || entity; San Joaquin County Sheriff PATRICK WITHROW;; San Joaquin County 27 || Sheriff's Office Correctional Officers MARIO PENA, KAYLA LONG, JAMES 3RD STIP. AND ORDER TO EXTEND SCHEDULING ORDER DEADLINES

1 FARR, PABLO MARMALEJO, and Sergeant ERIC SESSIONS; San Joaquin 2 County Physician Manager MORIS SENEGOR; San Joaquin County CHC Chief 3 Clinician CYNTHIA BORGES-ODELL, MFT; CHC Mental Health Unit Supervisor 4 TEFFANY CALICA; CHC employees PAULA ALEYDA ARAGON DE 5 GONZALEZ, LVN; MARY M. 6 CENDANA, RN; KEVIN TORRES, LVN; MARIE DAGUMAN, LCSW; 7 MARGARITA PALOMERA; RITA MANANQUIL, RN; and County of San 8 Joaquin DOES 1-50, jointly and severally, 9 Defendants. 10 ___________________________________ 11 Plaintiffs M.P. and ROY McCOLLUM (“Plaintiffs”) and the Defendants COUNTY OF SAN 12 JOAQUIN, et al. (collectively, “Defendants”), collectively referred to as “the parties”, by and through 13 their respective counsel of record, hereby stipulate as follows: 14 1. When an act must be done within a specified time, the Court may, for good cause, extend 15 The time with or without motion if the court acts, or a request is made, before the original time expires. 16 Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A). With respect to an order setting forth the Court’s pretrial schedule, “[t]he 17 district court may modify the pretrial schedule ‘if it cannot be reasonably met despite the diligence of the 18 party seeking the amendment.’” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). 19 This is the Parties’ third request for extension of time of the Pretrial Scheduling Order; the first and second 20 requests were granted for good cause. See ECF Nos. 35, 39. 21 2. The parties have made substantial progress in written fact discovery and have started 22 depositions, but recent discovery has shown that more time is needed. On March 28, 2025, Defendants 23 deposed Plaintiff Roy McCollum, father of Brittany McCullum, who completed suicide at the County’s 24 jail. In addition to M.P., Ms. McCullum had another child, E.D., who was adopted and for whom a juvenile 25 dependency case may exists. Defendants contend that such a file is relevant to damages, and the parties 26 need time to meet and confer about obtaining this file pursuant to California Welfare & Institutions Code 27 § 827. In addition, since Plaintiff’s deposition, the parties have continued to meet and confer regarding 1 Plaintiffs’ contention that Defendants have withheld: (1) documents identified on a privilege log related 2 to named parties that should be produced pursuant to the stipulated protective order; and (2) documents— 3 including digital audio files of inmate witness interviews—not on the privilege log. As to (1), because 4 some of the withheld documents pertain to named parties, Plaintiffs need to obtain them well in advance 5 of these named parties’ depositions, to avoid Plaintiffs having to recall them for a second deposition after 6 production of the withheld documents. As to (2), some of the withheld documents are digital audio files 7 containing interviews by County law-enforcement personnel of at least six inmate witnesses to the 8 moments leading up to Brittany McCullum’s suicide. These interviews likely contain relevant information 9 about the actions and inactions of the named Correctional Officers Pena, Long, Farr, Marmalejo, and 10 Sergeant Sessions, who were responsible for Ms. McCullum’s safety. Plaintiffs need to review these 11 digital audio files before the depositions of these party defendants and of the inmate witnesses. Given that 12 one or more of these inmate-witnesses may be in prison, the parties will need to seek leave of court to 13 notice depositions. Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a)(2)(B). Further, Defendants intend to meet and confer about 14 Plaintiffs’ responses to written discovery. Given the foregoing, the parties met and conferred by Zoom on 15 October 1, 2025, and they agree that they require further time to meet and confer about these issues to 16 avoid bringing any discovery dispute before the assigned magistrate. Once the documents have been 17 produced, the depositions of the Correctional Officers and inmate witnesses may be scheduled. 18 3. Moreover, the parties’ counsel’s conflicts in earlier-filed matters preclude the scheduling 19 of further party depositions before the November 14, 2025 cutoff of fact discovery. There are 15 20 individually named County Defendants, and Defendants’ lead trial counsel, who will defend all party 21 depositions, will be occupied from now through November 2025 with trial preparations in Lake v City of 22 Vallejo et al, scheduled to begin trial on December 9, 2025, and to last through December 16, 2025. This 23 has made the undersigned defense counsel unavailable to conduct any depositions during the month of 24 November. Moreover, Plaintiffs’ counsel must finish expert discovery by November 18, 2025, in D.B. v. 25 City of Stockton, et al., No. 2:21-02154-DJC-SCR (E.D. Cal.), and must take party depositions beginning 26 in November 2025, in K.C. v. Alameda County, et al., No. 4:22-cv-01817-DMR (N.D. Cal.). Counsel for 27 the parties have worked together on several cases together, and have one other case together currently, 1 and have always extended professional courtesy to one another with respect to case deadlines. Counsel 2 for the parties wish to continue to do so, particularly with respect to the scheduling of depositions, so that 3 they are scheduled on dates that align with both the deponents’ and counsels’ calendars. In addition to 4 these scheduling issues, Plaintiffs’ co-counsel, Mr. Helm, will undergo in-patient surgery on October 28, 5 2025, with several days in the hospital followed by recovery at home, and Plaintiffs’ co-counsel, Mr. 6 Schmidt, will be taking a pre-paid trip to Europe with his family, from October 30 to November 10, 2025. 7 4. Due to the remaining issues relating to written discovery and the documents that remain 8 outstanding, the number of depositions that need to be taken, and conflicts in earlier-filed matters, the 9 parties cannot reasonably meet the existing schedule despite their diligent efforts. Given counsel’s desire 10 to exercise professional courtesy by setting depositions on dates convenient for parties and their counsel, 11 the undersigned counsel reasonably estimate the need for, and, thus, respectfully request, to extend the 12 discovery deadline and all other dates in the Scheduling Order (ECF No. 39) by approximately six (6) 13 months: 14 DEADLINE ECF No. 39 Proposed New Date 15 Fact Discovery 11/14/2025 05/14/2026 16 Settlement Conference 12/09/2025 06/09/2026 17 Expert Disclosures 01/16/2026 07/16/2026 18 Exchange of Rebuttal Expert 02/20/2026 08/20/2026 19 Witnesses 20 All Expert Discovery 04/17/2026 10/17/2026 21 Filing of all Dispositive Motions, 22 except for Motions for 23 Continuances, Temporary 06/15/2026 12/15/2026 24 Restraining Orders or Other 25 Emergency Applications 26 IT IS SO STIPULATED. 27 1 Dated: October 14, 2025 PORTER SCOTT A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 2 By /s/John R. Whitefleet* 3 John R. Whitefleet 4 Attorney for Defendants 5 Dated: October 14, 2025 LAW OFFICE OF SANJAY S. SCHMIDT 6 HELM LAW OFFICE, PC 7 By /s/ T. Kennedy Helm, IV T.Kennedy Helm, IV 8 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 1 ORDER 2 The Court, having reviewed and considered the Parties’ Stipulation to Extend Scheduling Order 3 Deadlines, and finding good cause, hereby Orders as follows: 4 The Court sets the following new dates: 5 6 DEADLINE ECF No. 39 Proposed New Date 7 Fact Discovery 11/14/2025 05/14/2026 8 Settlement Conference 12/09/2025 06/09/2026 9 Expert Disclosures 01/16/2026 07/16/2026 10 Exchange of Rebuttal Expert 02/20/2026 08/20/2026 11 Witnesses 12 All Expert Discovery 04/17/2026 10/17/2026 13 Filing of all Dispositive Motions, 14 except for Motions for 15 Continuances, Temporary 06/15/2026 12/15/2026 16 Restraining Orders or Other 17 Emergency Applications 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 21 Dated: October 15, 2025. 22 23 24 25 26 27

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

M.P., a minor, by and through his guardian ad litem, Roy McCollum, individually and as Successor in interest to Decedent BRITTANY CAITLIN McCULLUM; and ROY McCOLLOM, individually v. COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN, a public entity; San Joaquin County Sheriff PATRICK WITHROW; San Joaquin County Sheriff's Office Correctional Officers MARIO PENA, KAYLA LONG, JAMES FARR, PABLO MARMALEJO, and Sergeant ERIC SESSIONS; San Joaquin County Physician Manager MORIS SENEGOR; San Joaquin County CHC Chief Clinician CYNTHIA BORGES-ODELL, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mp-a-minor-by-and-through-his-guardian-ad-litem-roy-mccollum-caed-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack