Free Motion to Stay - District Court of California - California

Case 3:07-cv-02221-BEN-NLS

Document 26

Filed 08/01/2008

Page 1 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

JOHN J. SANSONE, County Counsel (State Bar No. 103060) County of San Diego By RICKY R. SANCHEZ, Senior Deputy (State Bar No. 107559) DAVID BRODIE, Senior Deputy (State Bar No. 156855) 1600 Pacific Highway, Room 355 San Diego, California 92101-2469 Telephone: (619) 531-4874; Fax: (619) 531-6005 E-mail: [email protected] Attorneys for Defendant County of San Diego

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HENRY KODIMER, by and through (sic) ) his guardian ad litem, LYN RAMSKILL, ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CITY OF ESCONDIDO; COUNTY OF ) ) SAN DIEGO; OFFICER WYSE; ) OFFICER UMSTOT; SERGEANT DISTEL; and Doe Defendants 1 through ) ) 10, inclusive, ) ) Defendants. )

No. 07-cv-2221-BEN(NLS) EX PARTE REQUEST FOR DISCOVERY STAY AND ALTERATION OF LITIGATION DATES

Plaintiffs filed this action on or abort November 20, 2007. The complaint was served on the City of Escondido which answered on March 6, 2008. An Early Neutral Evaluation Conference was conducted on April 16, 2008. The County of San Diego had not at that time been served with process and had not made any appearance in the case. At the ENE the Court issued dates for submission of a Rule 26 conference, plan and initial disclosures. On May 7, 2008, the County entered its first appearance in this case filing a motion to dismiss. On May 19, 2008, this Court issued an order temporary staying discovery and re-setting the dates for submission of a Rule 26 plan and initial disclosures. The County's motion for dismissal has been taken under submission. The County awaits a ruling on the motion to dismiss.
07-cv-2221-BEN(NLS)

Case 3:07-cv-02221-BEN-NLS

Document 26

Filed 08/01/2008

Page 2 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

At present there is no viable complaint against the County of San Diego. The County is therefore uninformed as to what theories of recovery plaintiff will be permitted to proceed with as against the County. Absent such information the County is impaired in its ability to issue or assert adequate discovery objections, privileges and disclosures. The County has attempted to cooperate with the parties in their attempt to draft a Rule 26 plan which draft would contain the caveat regarding the pendency of the Court's ruling on the County's motion to dismiss and that discovery is therefore premature. Counsel for the County has met and conferred with counsel for plaintiff and the City of Escondido regarding the County's desire for an extension of the discovery stay and the litigation dates set forth in this Court's order of May 19, 2008. The parties could reach no agreement regarding the County's request. Because there is a need to immediately address these concerns this ex parte request is submitted. Based on the foregoing and because no Early Neutral Evaluation Conference has been conducted with the participation of the County, good cause exists to stay discovery and the litigation schedule pending the District Court's ruling on the County's motion to dismiss. The County therefore requests that this Court grant the requested ex parte order. DATED: August 1, 2008 JOHN J. SANSONE, County Counsel By: s/ RICKY R. SANCHEZ, Senior Deputy DAVID BRODIE, Senior Deputy Attorneys for Defendant County of San Diego E-mail: [email protected]

-207-cv-2221-BEN(NLS)

Case 3:07-cv-02221-BEN-NLS

Document 26

Filed 08/01/2008

Page 3 of 3

Declaration of Service I, the undersigned, declare: That I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the case; I am employed in, or am a resident of, the County of San Diego, California where the service occurred; and my business address is: 1600 Pacific Highway, Room 355, San Diego, California. On August 1, 2008, I served the following documents: Ex Parte Request For Discovery Stay And Alteration Of Litigation Dates in the following manner: By personally delivering copies to the person served. By placing a copy in a separate envelope, with postage fully prepaid, for each addressee named below and depositing each in the U. S. Mail at San Diego, California. By electronic filing, I served each of the above referenced documents by E-filing, in accordance with the rules governing the electronic filing of documents in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, as to the following parties: Richard T. Copeland, Esq. Moreno & Perez 714 West Olympic Boulevard, #450 Los Angeles, California 90015 (213) 745-6300 (213) 745-6060 (fax) E-mail: [email protected] (Attorneys for Plaintiff Henry Kodimer, by and through his Guardian ad Litem, Lyn Ramskill) Michael R McGuinness, Deputy City Attorney's Office 201 N. Broadway Escondido, CA 92025 (760) 839-4608 (760) 741-7541 (fax) E:mail: [email protected] (Attorneys for Defendants City of Escondido, Officer Wyse, Officer Umstot, Sergeant Distel)

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on August 1, 2008, at San Diego, California. By: s/ RICKY R. SANCHEZ E-mail: [email protected]

(Henry Kodimer, etc. v. City of Escondido, et al.; USDC No. 07-cv-2221-BEN(NLS))