Garcia v. County of Tulare

Filing 13

SCHEDULING CONFERENCE ORDER signed by Judge Oliver W. Wanger on 2/7/2008. (Discovery due by 8/11/2008; Non-Dispositive Motions due by 8/19/2008; Dispositive Motion due by 8/25/2008; Settlement Conference set for 8/26/2008 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 9 (DLB) before Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck; Pretrial Conference set for 10/14/2008 at 11:00 AM in Courtroom 3 (OWW) before Judge Oliver W. Wanger; Jury Trial set for 11/18/2008 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 3 (OWW) before Judge Oliver W. Wanger.)(Esteves, C)

Garcia v. County of Tulare

Doc. 13

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Plaintiffs, 11 v. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 II. I. Date of Scheduling Conference. February 6, 2008. Appearances Of Counsel. Morrison & Foerster LLP by Arturo J. Gonzalez, Esq., and J. Ryan Gilfoil, Esq., appeared on behalf of Plaintiffs. Weakley, Ratliff, Arendt & McGuire, LLP by James D. Weakley, Esq., and Teresa Saucedo, Esq., Deputy County Counsel, appeared on behalf of Defendant. 1 Trial Date: 11/18/08 9:00 Ctrm. 3 (JT-4 days) Pre-Trial Conference Date: 10/14/08 11:00 Ctrm. 3 COUNTY OF TULARE and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants. BOBBIE GARCIA, on behalf of JOSEPH LUIS GARCIA, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 1:07-cv-1593 OWW DLB SCHEDULING CONFERENCE ORDER Discovery Cut-Off: 8/11/08 Non-Dispositive Motion Filing Deadline: 8/19/08 Dispositive Motion Filing Deadline: 8/25/08 Settlement Conference Date: 8/26/08 10:00 Ctrm. 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Dockets.Justia.com

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

III.

Summary of Pleadings. Plaintiff's Contentions 1. Mrs. Bobbie Garcia ("Mrs. Garcia") sues on behalf of

her son, Joseph Luis Garcia ("Joseph"), who suffers from cognitive deficiencies due to injuries sustained in an automobile accident. Defendants are the County of Tulare and presently Mrs.

unidentified officers involved in the following incidents. Garcia alleges as follows:

that Joseph was arrested on warrants

for another suspect and was incarcerated for over three days; that officers and jail personnel failed to adequately verify that Joseph was the suspect described in the warrant; that the officers acted pursuant to a policy, pattern, practice, or custom of excessively long detention and of failure to adequately verify arrestees' identities; and that there has been a failure to adequately train and discipline the responsible officers. Garcia also alleges that Defendants' actions constituted violations of Joseph's rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments; false arrest and/or imprisonment; and negligence. Mrs. Garcia seeks general, special, exemplary, and punitive damages; attorneys' fees and costs; and injunctive relief. Defendants deny Mrs. Garcia's allegations and mount numerous affirmative defenses. Defendant's Contentions 2. On June 4, 2007, Deputy Luis Pineda was dispatched to During his Mrs.

investigate a disturbance call in Earlimart.

investigation of the call, the Plaintiff rode up to Deputy Pineda on a bicycle. While speaking with the Plaintiff, Deputy Pineda

smelled a strong odor of what he believed to be burned marijuana 2

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

coming from the Plaintiff's body. himself as Joseph Garcia.

The Plaintiff identified

During Deputy Pineda's conversation

with Joseph Garcia, Mr. Garcia advised Deputy Pineda that he had a glass pipe in his pocket. Deputy Pineda ran a warrant check on

Joseph Garcia and conducted a brief pat down search for weapons, which revealed a second glass pipe. Joseph Garcia was

subsequently arrested for possession of drug paraphernalia. 3. After running a warrant check on Joseph Garcia, with an

approximate age of 24, from the Earlimart area, dispatch advised that four other warrants were active for a "Joseph Garcia" from Earlimart. The physical descriptions were very similar. Deputy

Pineda advised Mr. Garcia that he was under arrest for the drug paraphernalia and the outstanding warrants. to Pineda that he understood. 4. Joseph Garcia was booked into the Tulare County Jail on Mr. Garcia indicated

the four active warrants, and the fresh charge of possession of drug paraphernalia. 5. On June 6, 2007, Joseph Garcia appeared in court along Bail was set and he was remanded for further

with his attorney. hearing. 6.

On June 8, 2007, Joseph Garcia appeared in court for an He was released on the active warrants. However, He

ID hearing.

the fresh case of possession of drug paraphernalia was filed. was released on his own recognizance to return to court. 7.

On August 17, 2007, Joseph Garcia appeared in court for He then pled guilty to

a motion to suppress, which was denied. the possession charge. 8.

A lawsuit has been brought by Bobbie Garcia on behalf 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

of Joseph Luis Garcia.

Defendant County of Tulare questions

Bobbie Garcia's standing to bring a lawsuit on behalf of Mr. Garcia. IV. Orders Re Amendments To Pleadings. 1. The parties do not presently contemplate filing any

amendments to the pleadings. V. Factual Summary. A. Admitted Facts Which Are Deemed Proven Without Further

Proceedings. 1. Joseph Garcia was arrested the evening of Monday,

June 4, 2007, by Tulare County Sheriff's Deputy Pineda. 2. Joseph Garcia was booked into the Tulare County

Jail on June 4, 2007. 3. Joseph Garcia was released from the Tulare County

Jail on June 8, 2007. 4. law. 5. Defendant's employees acted in the course and Defendant's employees acted under color of state

scope of their employment. 6. The County of Tulare is a public entity within the

State of California. B. Contested Facts. 1. Other than those stated above, all other facts as

alleged by Plaintiff relating to liability and damages are contested by Defendant. VI. Legal Issues. A. Uncontested. 1. Jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 4

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

1367 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 2. 3. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391. As to supplemental claims, the parties agree that

the substantive law of the State of California provides the rule of decision. B. Contested. 1. Whether the arrest of Joseph constituted an

unreasonable seizure. 2. Whether the arrest and detention of Joseph

constituted false arrest/imprisonment. 3. Whether the arrest and detention of Joseph

constituted negligence. 4. Whether the arrest and detention of Joseph

deprived him of liberty without due process of law. 5. Whether the Plaintiff has a Fourth Amendment claim

against the Defendant, County of Tulare. 6. Whether Bobbie Garcia has standing to bring a

lawsuit on behalf of Joseph Garcia. 7. Whether the arrest of Joseph Garcia amounts to a

deprivation of constitutional rights against the Defendant, County of Tulare. 8. Whether the arrest and detention of Joseph Garcia

constitutes a false arrest and false imprisonment claim under state law. 9. Whether the arrest and detention of Joseph Garcia

constitutes negligence under state law. 10. The nature and extent of comparative fault and

fault of others. 5

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

VII. Consent to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction. 1. The parties have not consented to transfer the

case to the Magistrate Judge for all purposes, including trial. VIII. 1. Corporate Identification Statement. Any nongovernmental corporate party to any action in

this court shall file a statement identifying all its parent corporations and listing any entity that owns 10% or more of the party's equity securities. A party shall file the statement with

its initial pleading filed in this court and shall supplement the statement within a reasonable time of any change in the information. IX. Discovery Plan and Cut-Off Date. 1. No changes are proposed in the timing, form, or The parties have

requirements for disclosures under Rule 26(a).

stipulated to make initial disclosures by January 30, 2008. 2. 3. Discovery will be needed on all factual issues. No changes in the limitations on discovery imposed by

the Federal Rules or local rules are proposed. 4. Plaintiff contends that electronically stored Defendant

information should be produced in its native format. may object to this nature of production. 5.

Defendant intends to have a mental examination of Plaintiff may object to such an

Plaintiff conducted. examination. 6.

The parties are ordered to complete all percipient

discovery on or before June 30, 2008. 7. The parties are ordered to complete all discovery,

including experts, on or before August 11, 2008. 6

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

8.

The parties are directed to disclose all expert Any rebuttal

witnesses, in writing, on or before June 16, 2008.

or supplemental expert disclosures will be made on or before July 15, 2008. The parties will comply with the provisions of Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) regarding their expert designations. Local Rule 16-240(a) notwithstanding, the written

designation of experts shall be made pursuant to F. R. Civ. P. Rule 26(a)(2), (A) and (B) and shall include all information required thereunder. Failure to designate experts in compliance

with this order may result in the Court excluding the testimony or other evidence offered through such experts that are not disclosed pursuant to this order. 9. The provisions of F. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4) shall

apply to all discovery relating to experts and their opinions. Experts may be fully prepared to be examined on all subjects and opinions included in the designation. result in the imposition of sanctions. X. Pre-Trial Motion Schedule. 1. All Non-Dispositive Pre-Trial Motions, including any Failure to comply will

discovery motions, will be filed on or before August 11, 2008, and heard on September 19, 2008, at 9:00 a.m. before Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck in Courtroom 9. 2. In scheduling such motions, the Magistrate

Judge may grant applications for an order shortening time pursuant to Local Rule 142(d). However, if counsel does not

obtain an order shortening time, the notice of motion must comply with Local Rule 251. 3. All Dispositive Pre-Trial Motions are to be 7

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

filed no later than August 19, 2008, and will be heard on September 22, 2008, at 10:00 a.m. before the Honorable Oliver W. Wanger, United States District Judge, in Courtroom 3, 7th Floor. In scheduling such motions, counsel shall comply with Local Rule 230. XI. Pre-Trial Conference Date. 1. October 14, 2008, at 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom 3, 7th

Floor, before the Honorable Oliver W. Wanger, United States District Judge. 2. The parties are ordered to file a Joint Pre-

Trial Statement pursuant to Local Rule 281(a)(2). 3. Counsel's attention is directed to Rules 281

and 282 of the Local Rules of Practice for the Eastern District of California, as to the obligations of counsel in preparing for the pre-trial conference. The Court will insist upon strict

compliance with those rules. XII. Trial Date. 1. November 18, 2008, at the hour of 9:00 a.m. in

Courtroom 3, 7th Floor, before the Honorable Oliver W. Wanger, United States District Judge. 2. 3. This is a jury trial. Counsels' Estimate Of Trial Time: a. 4. 4 days.

Counsels' attention is directed to Local Rules

of Practice for the Eastern District of California, Rule 285. XIII. 1. Settlement Conference. A Settlement Conference is scheduled for August 26,

2008, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 9 before the Honorable Dennis L. 8

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

Beck, United States Magistrate Judge. 2. Unless otherwise permitted in advance by the

Court, the attorneys who will try the case shall appear at the Settlement Conference with the parties and the person or persons having full authority to negotiate and settle the case on any terms at the conference. 3. Permission for a party [not attorney] to attend

by telephone may be granted upon request, by letter, with a copy to the other parties, if the party [not attorney] lives and works outside the Eastern District of California, and attendance in person would constitute a hardship. If telephone attendance is

allowed, the party must be immediately available throughout the conference until excused regardless of time zone differences. Any other special arrangements desired in cases where settlement authority rests with a governing body, shall also be proposed in advance by letter copied to all other parties. 4. Confidential Settlement Conference Statement.

At least five (5) days prior to the Settlement Conference the parties shall submit, directly to the Magistrate Judge's chambers, a confidential settlement conference statement. The

statement should not be filed with the Clerk of the Court nor served on any other party. Each statement shall be clearly

marked "confidential" with the date and time of the Settlement Conference indicated prominently thereon. Counsel are urged to

request the return of their statements if settlement is not achieved and if such a request is not made the Court will dispose of the statement. 5. The Confidential Settlement Conference 9

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

Statement shall include the following: a. case. b. A brief statement of the claims and A brief statement of the facts of the

defenses, i.e., statutory or other grounds upon which the claims are founded; a forthright evaluation of the parties' likelihood of prevailing on the claims and defenses; and a description of the major issues in dispute. c. d. A summary of the proceedings to date. An estimate of the cost and time to be

expended for further discovery, pre-trial and trial. e. f. The relief sought. The parties' position on settlement,

including present demands and offers and a history of past settlement discussions, offers and demands. XIV. Request For Bifurcation, Appointment Of Special Master, Or Other Techniques To Shorten Trial. 1. The issue of the amount, if any, of punitive damages,

will be tried in a second phase in a continuous trial before the same jury. Plaintiff reserves the right to object to a phased The Defendants seek to try, in a second The Court will make a decision at

trial on Monell issues.

phase, any Monell evidence.

the time of the hearing of motions in limine on the issue of phasing Monell issues, if any. XV. Related Matters Pending. 1. There are no related matters.

XVI. Compliance With Federal Procedure. 1. The Court requires compliance with the Federal 10

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

Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of Practice for the Eastern District of California. To aid the court in the

efficient administration of this case, all counsel are directed to familiarize themselves with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of Practice of the Eastern District of California, and keep abreast of any amendments thereto. XVII. 1. Effect Of This Order. The foregoing order represents the best

estimate of the court and counsel as to the agenda most suitable to bring this case to resolution. The trial date reserved is If the parties determine at

specifically reserved for this case.

any time that the schedule outlined in this order cannot be met, counsel are ordered to notify the court immediately of that fact so that adjustments may be made, either by stipulation or by subsequent scheduling conference. 2. Stipulations extending the deadlines contained

herein will not be considered unless they are accompanied by affidavits or declarations, and where appropriate attached exhibits, which establish good cause for granting the relief requested. 3. Failure to comply with this order may result in

the imposition of sanctions.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: February 7, 2008 emm0d6 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11