Green v. Tehachapi Unified School District

Filing 12

AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 3/15/2016. Status Conference re: Merits Briefing set for 12/5/2016 at 09:00 AM in Bakersfield at 510 19th Street (JLT) before Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston. Hearing on Merits Briefs set for 3/28/2017 at 08:30 AM in Courtroom 4 (LJO) before District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill. (Hall, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

N.G. (a minor, by and through her parent
and guardian ad litem, J.G.),

11

Plaintiff,

12
13
14

v.
TEHACHAPI UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT, et al.,
Defendants.

15
16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1: 15-CV-01740 LJO JLT
AMENDED1 SCHEDULING ORDER (Fed. R. Civ.
P. 16)
Pleading Amendment Deadline: 11/1/2016
Administrative Record Deadlines:
Filing: 4/25/2016
Objections to record: 5/10/2016
Briefs re: Discovery
Plaintiff’s Brief: 5/25/2016
Defendant’s Brief: 6/24/2016
Plaintiff’s Reply:7/5/2016

17
18
19

Non-Dispositive Motion Deadlines:
Filing: 11/7/2016
Hearing: 12/5/2016

20
21

Status Conference re: Merits Briefing: 12/5/2016

22

Appeal from Administrative Decision:
Plaintiff’s Brief: 12/19/2016
Defendant’s response: 1/16/2017
Reply brief: 1/30/2017
Hearing on the Briefs: 3/28/2017, Ctrm 4

23
24
25
26
27
28
1

For the parties’ convenience, changes to the previous scheduling order are highlighted in yellow.
1

1

I.

February 23, 2016.

2
3

Date of Scheduling Conference

II.

Appearances of Counsel

4

Andrea Marcus appeared on behalf of Plaintiff.

5

Darren Bogie, appeared on behalf of Defendants.

6

III.

Magistrate Judge Consent:

7

Notice of Congested Docket and Court Policy of Trailing

8

Due to the District Judges’ heavy caseload, the newly adopted policy of the Fresno Division of

9

the Eastern District is to trail all civil cases. The parties are hereby notified that for a trial date set

10

before a District Judge, the parties will trail indefinitely behind any higher priority criminal or older

11

civil case set on the same date until a courtroom becomes available. The trial date will not be reset to a

12

continued date.
The Magistrate Judges’ availability is far more realistic and accommodating to parties than that

13
14

of the U.S. District Judges who carry the heaviest caseloads in the nation and who must prioritize

15

criminal and older civil cases over more recently filed civil cases. A United States Magistrate Judge

16

may conduct trials, including entry of final judgment, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), Federal Rule of

17

Civil Procedure 73, and Local Rule 305. Any appeal from a judgment entered by a United States

18

Magistrate Judge is taken directly to the United States Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit.
The Fresno Division of the Eastern District of California, whenever possible, is utilizing United

19
20

States Article III District Court Judges from throughout the nation as Visiting Judges. Pursuant to the

21

Local Rules, Appendix A, such reassignments will be random, and the parties will receive no advance

22

notice before their case is reassigned to an Article III District Court Judge from outside of the Eastern

23

District of California.
Therefore, the parties are directed to consider consenting to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction to

24
25

conduct all further proceedings, including trial. Within 10 days of the date of this order, counsel

26

SHALL file a consent/decline form (provided by the Court at the inception of this case) indicating

27

whether they will consent to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge.

28

///
2

1

IV.

Pleading Amendment Deadline
Any requested pleading amendments are ordered to be filed, either through a stipulation or

2
3

motion to amend, no later than November 1, 2016.

4

V.

Administrative Record
Plaintiff SHALL file the administrative record no later than April 25, 2016. Plaintiff need not

5
6

provide a courtesy paper copy but SHALL provide a searchable electronic copy to the chambers of

7

Judge O’Neill. Objections to the record SHALL be filed no later than May 10, 2016.

8

If there is a dispute over the contents of the administrative record, the objecting party SHALL

9

confer with the opposing party in a good faith effort to resolve the issues in dispute. If that good faith

10

effort is unsuccessful, the objecting party SHALL promptly seek a telephonic hearing with all involved

11

parties and the Magistrate Judge. It is the obligation of the objecting party to arrange and originate the

12

conference call to the Court. To schedule this telephonic hearing, the parties are ordered to contact

13

Courtroom Deputy Clerk, Susan Hall at [phone] or via email at [e-mail].

14

VI.

The parties disagree whether discovery should be allowed. They agree to brief the issue. The

15
16

Discovery

briefs filed at this time also may seek augmentation of the record.

17

Plaintiff’s brief seeking discovery and/or motion to augment the record SHALL be filed no

18

later than May 25, 2016. The brief SHALL set forth with precision the discovery sought and why

19

discovery of this sort should be permitted. It must be supported by pertinent legal authority.

20

Defendant’s brief opposing discovery and/or motion to augment the record SHALL be filed no

21

later than June 24, 2016. Plaintiff’s optional reply/opposition to motion to augment the record, if any,

22

SHALL be filed no later than July 5, 2016.

23

VII.

Pre-Trial Motion Schedule

24

A.

25

All non-dispositive pre-trial motions, including any motions to augment the record2, shall be

26

Non-dispositive motions

filed no later than November 7, 2016, and heard on or before December 5, 2016. Non-dispositive

27
28

2

The parties may file their motion to augment the record either along with the briefing related to whether discovery
should be allowed or by the dates set forth here.

3

1

motions are heard before the Honorable Jennifer L. Thurston, United States Magistrate Judge at the

2

United States Courthouse in Bakersfield, California.
No written motions shall be filed without the prior approval of the assigned Magistrate Judge.

3
4

A party with a discovery dispute must first confer with the opposing party in a good faith effort to

5

resolve by agreement the issues in dispute. If that good faith effort is unsuccessful, the moving party

6

promptly shall seek a telephonic hearing with all involved parties and the Magistrate Judge. It shall be

7

the obligation of the moving party to arrange and originate the conference call to the court. To

8

schedule this telephonic hearing, the parties are ordered to contact Courtroom Deputy Clerk, Susan Hall

9

at [phone] or via email at [e-mail]. Counsel must comply with Local Rule

10

251 with respect to discovery disputes or the motion will be denied without prejudice and

11

dropped from calendar.
In scheduling such motions, the Magistrate Judge may grant applications for an order shortening

12
13

time pursuant to Local Rule 144(e). However, if counsel does not obtain an order shortening time, the

14

notice of motion must comply with Local Rule 251. Counsel may appear and argue non-dispositive

15

motions via CourtCall.

16

B.

Status Conference re: Merits briefing

17

The Court sets a status conference re: the merits briefing on December 5, 2016 at 9:00 a.m. at

18

the United States Courthouse, located at 510 19th Street, Bakersfield, CA, before Magistrate Judge

19

Thurston. Appearances via CourtCall are authorized. No later than November 28, 2016, counsel

20

SHALL file a joint status conference statement indicating whether the matter will proceed only on the

21

administrative record or whether either party will seek to present live testimony. In the event either

22

party will present live testimony, the briefing schedule and the hearing date may need to be changed to

23

allow the briefs to be filed after the presentation of the testimony.

24

C.

Merits briefing

25

Plaintiff’s brief on the merits SHALL be filed no later than December 19, 2016 and

26

Defendant’s opposing brief SHALL be filed no later than January 16, 2017. Plaintiff’s reply, if any,

27

SHALL be filed no later than January 30, 2017.

28

///
4

1

X.

Hearing on the Briefs
March 28, 2017 at 8:30 a.m. in Courtroom 4 before the Honorable Lawrence J. O'Neill, United

2
3

States District Court Judge.

4

A.

This is oral argument on the merits briefs only.

5

B.

Counsels’ attention is directed to Local Rules of Practice for the Eastern District of

6

California, Rule 285.

7

XI.

Compliance with Federal Procedure
All counsel are expected to familiarize themselves with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

8
9

and the Local Rules of Practice of the Eastern District of California, and to keep abreast of any

10

amendments thereto. The Court must insist upon compliance with these Rules if it is to efficiently

11

handle its increasing case load and sanctions will be imposed for failure to follow the Rules as provided

12

in both the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of Practice for the Eastern District of

13

California.

14

XII.

15

Effect of this Order
This order represents the best estimate of the court and counsel as to the schedule most suitable

16

to dispose of this case. If the parties determine that the schedule outlined in this order cannot be met,

17

they must notify the court immediately so that adjustments may be made, either by stipulation or by

18

subsequent status conference.

19

The dates set in this Order are firm and will not be modified absent a showing of good

20

cause even if the request to modify is made by stipulation. Stipulations extending the deadlines

21

contained herein will not be considered unless they are accompanied by evidence establishing

22

good cause for granting the relief requested. Failure to comply with this order may result in the

23

imposition of sanctions.

24
25
26
27

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

March 15, 2016

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

28
5