Villareal v. County of Fresno

Filing 120

ORDER after Hearing; ORDER Directing Clerk to Send Plaintiff Copy of this Order, signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 7/27/18. Mandatory Scheduling Conference set for 8/27/2018 at 01:30 PM in Courtroom 10 (EPG) before Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

ELAINE K. VILLAREAL,

11
12
13
14

Plaintiff,

19

Defendants.
Elaine Villareal (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis with this civil
rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On July 27, 2018, the Court held a hearing in
this case.

22

Counsel Jeff Price personally appeared on behalf of Plaintiff.

Counsel Scott

Hawkins personally appeared on behalf of Defendants.

20
21

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO SEND
PLAINTIFF COPY OF THIS ORDER

COUNTY OF FRESNO and SHERIFF
MARGARET MIMS,

16

18

ORDER FOLLOWING HEARING

v.

15

17

Case No. 1:15-cv-01410-DAD-EPG (PC)

For the reasons stated on the record, and in an effort to secure the just, speedy, and
inexpensive disposition of this action,1 IT IS ORDERED that:
Discovery is now open.

I.

23

Defendant’s objection to the opening of discovery is

overruled, except that Plaintiff may not take discovery as to her claim regarding a

24
25
See, e.g., United States v. W.R. Grace, 526 F.3d 499, 508–09 (9th Cir. 2008) (“We begin with the
principle that the district court is charged with effectuating the speedy and orderly administration of justice. There
is universal acceptance in the federal courts that, in carrying out this mandate, a district court has the authority to
enter pretrial case management and discovery orders designed to ensure that the relevant issues to be tried are
identified, that the parties have an opportunity to engage in appropriate discovery and that the parties are
adequately and timely prepared so that the trial can proceed efficiently and intelligibly.”).
1

26
27
28

1

1

lack of programming at Fresno County Jail. The Court may further limit discovery

2

at a later date based on the outcome of the pending motion to dismiss.

3

II.

A Mandatory Scheduling Conference is set for August 27, 2018, at 1:30 p.m., before

4

United States Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean, in Courtroom 10 at the United

5

States Courthouse, 2500 Tulare Street, Fresno, CA 93721. Defendants may appear

6

by their counsel. Counsel have leave to appear by phone. Plaintiff shall appear

7

telephonically. Parties appearing by phone shall dial 1-[phone] and enter

8

access code 1024453.

9

III.

Plaintiff shall make arrangements with staff at her institution of confinement for her

10

attendance at the Mandatory Scheduling Conference, in addition to the appearance

11

of Plaintiff’s counsel. Plaintiff’s institution of confinement shall make Plaintiff

12

available for the conference at the date and time indicated above. Additionally,

13

defense counsel is hereby ordered to confirm with Plaintiff’s institution of

14

confinement that arrangements have been made for Plaintiff’s attendance prior to

15

the conference.

16

IV.

A Joint Scheduling Report, carefully prepared and executed by all counsel, shall be

17

electronically filed in CM/ECF, by August 23, 2018, and shall be emailed in Word

18

format to [e-mail]. The Joint Scheduling Report shall indicate

19

the date, time, and courtroom of the Scheduling Conference. This information is to

20

be placed opposite the caption on the first page of the Report. The Joint Scheduling

21

Report shall contain the following items by corresponding numbered paragraphs:

22

1. Whether the parties intend to conduct any inspections of the facility at issue,

23

and any agreement or dispute regarding when and under what circumstances

24

such an inspection shall take place;

25
26
27
28

2. Categories of documents likely to be the subject of discovery, and their
location;
3. A proposed deadline for amendments to pleadings.

Any proposed

amendment to the pleadings shall be referenced in the Scheduling
2

1

Conference Report. If the matter cannot be resolved at the Scheduling

2

Conference, the moving party shall file a motion to amend in accordance

3

with the Local Rules of the Eastern District of California.

4
5

4. A complete and detailed discovery plan addressing the following issues and
proposed dates:

6

i. A date for the exchange of initial disclosures required by Fed. R. Civ.

7

P. 26(a)(1) or a statement that disclosures have already been

8

exchanged;

9

ii. A firm cut-off date for non-expert discovery. When setting this date,

10

the parties are advised that motions to compel must be filed and

11

heard sufficiently in advance of the deadlines so that the Court may

12

grant effective relief within the allotted discovery time. The Court

13

recommends this date be scheduled no later than nine (9) months

14

from the scheduling conference;

15

iii. A date for a mid-status discovery conference that should be

16

scheduled approximately six (6) months after the scheduling

17

conference, or two (2) months before the non−expert discovery

18

deadline, whichever is earliest;

19

iv. A firm date for disclosure of expert witnesses, required by Fed. R.

20

Civ. P. 26(a)(2), rebuttal experts, as well as the cut-off for the

21

completion of all expert discovery. The parties shall allow thirty (30)

22

days between each of the expert discovery deadlines.

23

v. A date for the filing of dispositive motions (except motions in limine

24

or other trial motions). The Court suggests this date be forty-five

25

(45) days after the expert discovery deadline.

26

vi. A pre-trial conference date which shall be approximately two

27

hundred and ten (210) days after the dispositive motion filing

28

deadline.
3

1
2

vii. A trial date which shall be approximately sixty (60) days after the
proposed pre-trial conference date.

3

5. The parties are encouraged to discuss settlement, and must include a

4

statement in the Joint Scheduling Report as to the possibility of settlement.

5

The parties shall indicate when they desire a settlement conference, e.g.,

6

before further discovery, after discovery, after pre−trial motions, etc.

7

Among other things, counsel will be expected to discuss the possibility of

8

settlement at the Scheduling Conference.

9

6. A statement as to whether the case is a jury or non-jury case. The parties

10

shall briefly outline their respective positions if there is a disagreement as to

11

whether a jury trial has been timely demanded, or as to whether a jury trial is

12

available on some or all of the claims.

13

7. A statement as to whether documents were generated in connection with any

14

investigation related to the event(s) at issue in the Complaint or the

15

processing of Plaintiff’s grievance(s), and if there were, whether those

16

documents are subject to any claims of privilege.

17

8. A statement as to whether any party intends to challenge the issue of

18

exhaustion, and if so, when that party intends to file a motion for summary

19

judgment regarding the issue of exhaustion.

20
21

9. An estimate of the number of trial days required. If the parties cannot agree,
each party shall give his or her best estimate.

22

10. The parties' position regarding consent to proceed before a United States

23

magistrate judge. Note that the parties need not make a final decision on the

24

issue of consent until after the Scheduling Conference, but should state their

25

current position in this Statement and expect to make a final decision soon

26

after the Scheduling Conference. The parties may wish to consider that,

27

when a civil trial is set before the district judges in the Fresno Division, any

28

criminal trial or older civil trial that conflicts with the civil trial will take
4

1

priority, even if the civil trial was set first. Continuances of civil trials under

2

these circumstances may no longer be entertained, absent good cause, but

3

the civil trial may instead trail from day to day or week to week until the

4

completion of either the criminal case or the older civil case. Parties are free

5

to withhold consent or decline magistrate jurisdiction without adverse

6

substantive consequences.

7

V.

The Clerk of Court is directed to send Plaintiff a copy of this order.

8
9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

July 27, 2018

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5