Neylon et al v. County of Inyo et al
Filing
28
SCHEDULING ORDER, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 12/16/2016. Pleading Amendment Deadline 3/13/2017. Discovery Deadlines: Non-Expert 12/29/2017; Expert 3/9/2018; Mid-Discovery Status Conference set for 6/26/2017 at 09:00 AM in Bak ersfield at 510 19th Street (JLT) before Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston. Non-Dispositive Motion Deadlines: Filed by 3/19/2018; Hearing by 4/16/2018. Dispositive Motion Deadlines: Filed by 4/30/2018; Hearing by 6/11/2018. Settlement Confe rence set for 3/19/2018 at 09:00 AM in Bakersfield at 510 19th Street (JLT) before Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston. Pretrial Conference set for 8/1/2018 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 2 (AWI) before District Judge Anthony W. Ishii. Jury Trial set for 10/2/2018 at 08:30 AM in Courtroom 2 (AWI) before District Judge Anthony W. Ishii. (Hall, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
MELISSA NEYLON, et al.,
11
Plaintiffs,
12
13
v.
COUNTY OF INYO, et al.,
14
Defendants.
15
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
1: 16-CV-00712-AWI - JLT
SCHEDULING ORDER1 (Fed. R. Civ. P. 16)
Pleading Amendment Deadline: 3/13/2017
Discovery Deadlines:
Non-Expert: 12/29/2017
Expert: 3/9/2018
Mid-Discovery Status Conference:
6/26/2017 at 9:00 a.m.
16
17
Non-Dispositive Motion Deadlines:
Filing: 3/19/2018
Hearing: 4/16/2018
18
19
Dispositive Motion Deadlines:
Filing: 4/30/2018
Hearing: 6/11/2018
20
21
Settlement Conference:
3/19/2018, 9:00 a.m.
510 19th Street, Bakersfield, CA
22
23
24
Pre-Trial Conference:
8/1/2018 at 10:00 a.m.
Courtroom 2
25
26
Trial:
27
28
1
10/2/2018 at 8:30 a.m.
Courtroom 2
Jury trial: 5 days
The Court finds the matter suitable for decision without a hearing. Thus, the scheduling conference is VACATED.
1
1
2
I.
Information Concerning the Court’s Schedule
Out of fairness, the Court believes it is necessary to forewarn litigants that the Fresno Division
3
of the Eastern District of California now has the heaviest District Court Judge caseload in the entire
4
nation. While the Court will use its best efforts to resolve this case and all other civil cases in a timely
5
manner, the parties are admonished that not all of the parties’ needs and expectations may be met as
6
expeditiously as desired. As multiple trials are now being set to begin upon the same date, parties may
7
find their case trailing with little notice before the trial begins. The law requires that the Court give any
8
criminal trial priority over civil trials or any other matter. The Court must proceed with a criminal trial
9
even if a civil trial was filed earlier and set for trial first. Continuances of any civil trial under these
10
circumstances will no longer be entertained, absent a specific and stated finding of good cause. All
11
parties should be informed that any civil trial set to begin during the time a criminal trial is proceeding
12
will trail the completion of the criminal trial.
13
The parties are reminded of the availability of a United States Magistrate Judge to conduct all
14
proceedings in this action. A United States Magistrate Judge is available to conduct trials, including
15
entry of final judgment, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 73, and Local
16
Rule 305. The same jury pool is used by both United States Magistrate Judges and United States
17
District Court Judges. Any appeal from a judgment entered by a Magistrate Judge is taken directly to
18
the United States Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit. However, the parties are hereby informed that
19
no substantive rulings or decisions will be affected by whether a party chooses to consent.
20
Finally, the Fresno Division of the Eastern District of California, whenever possible, is utilizing
21
United States Article III District Court Judges from throughout the nation as Visiting Judges. Pursuant
22
to the Local Rules, Appendix A, reassignments will be random, and the parties will receive no advance
23
notice before their case is reassigned to an Article III District Court Judge from outside of the Eastern
24
District of California.
25
Therefore, the parties are directed to consider consenting to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction to
26
conduct all further proceedings, including trial. Within 10 days of the date of this order, counsel
27
SHALL file a consent/decline form (provided by the Court at the inception of this case) indicating
28
whether they will consent to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge.
2
1
II.
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 March 13, 2017.
4
III.
Discovery Plan and Cut-Off Date
5
The parties have exchange the initial disclosures required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1).
6
The parties are ordered to complete all discovery pertaining to non-experts on or before
7
8
9
December 29, 2017, and all discovery pertaining to experts on or before March 9, 2018.
The parties are directed to disclose all expert witnesses2, in writing, on or before January 12,
2018, and to disclose all rebuttal experts on or before February 9, 2018. The written designation of
10
retained and non-retained experts shall be made pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 26(a)(2), (A), (B),
11
and (C) and shall include all information required thereunder. Failure to designate experts in
12
compliance with this order may result in the Court excluding the testimony or other evidence offered
13
through such experts that are not disclosed pursuant to this order.
14
The provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4) and (5) shall apply to all discovery relating to experts
15
and their opinions. Experts must be fully prepared to be examined on all subjects and opinions
16
included in the designation. Failure to comply will result in the imposition of sanctions, which may
17
include striking the expert designation and preclusion of expert testimony.
18
19
20
The provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e) regarding a party's duty to timely supplement
disclosures and responses to discovery requests will be strictly enforced.
A mid-discovery status conference is scheduled for June 26, 2017 at 9:00 a.m. before the
21
Honorable Jennifer L. Thurston, U.S. Magistrate Judge, located at 510 19th Street, Bakersfield,
22
California. Counsel SHALL file a joint mid-discovery status conference report one week before the
23
conference. Counsel also SHALL lodge the status report via e-mail to JLTorders@caed.uscourts.gov.
24
The joint statement SHALL outline the discovery counsel have completed and that which needs to be
25
completed as well as any impediments to completing the discovery within the deadlines set forth in this
26
order. Counsel may appear via CourtCall, providing a written notice of the intent to appear
27
28
2
In the event an expert will offer opinions related to an independent medical or mental health evaluation, the
examination SHALL occur sufficiently in advance of the disclosure deadline so the expert’s report fully details the expert’s
opinions in this regard.
3
1
telephonically is provided to the Magistrate Judge's Courtroom Deputy Clerk no later than five court
2
days before the noticed hearing date.
3
IV.
Pre-Trial Motion Schedule
4
All non-dispositive pre-trial motions, including any discovery motions, shall be filed no later
5
than March 19, 2018, and heard on or before April 16, 2018. Non-dispositive motions are heard at
6
9:00 a.m., before the Honorable Jennifer L. Thurston, United States Magistrate Judge, at the United
7
States District Courthouse located at 510 19th Street, Bakersfield, California.
No written discovery motions shall be filed without the prior approval of the assigned
8
9
Magistrate Judge. A party with a discovery dispute must first confer with the opposing party in a good
10
faith effort to resolve by agreement the issues in dispute. If that good faith effort is unsuccessful, the
11
moving party promptly shall seek a telephonic hearing with all involved parties and the Magistrate
12
Judge. It shall be the obligation of the moving party to arrange and originate the conference call to the
13
court. To schedule this telephonic hearing, the parties are ordered to contact Courtroom Deputy Clerk,
14
Susan Hall at (661) 326-6620 or via email at SHall@caed.uscourts.gov. Counsel must comply with
15
Local Rule 251 with respect to discovery disputes or the motion will be denied without prejudice
16
and dropped from calendar.
In scheduling such motions, the Magistrate Judge may grant applications for an order shortening
17
18
time pursuant to Local Rule 144(e). However, if counsel does not obtain an order shortening time, the
19
notice of motion must comply with Local Rule 251.
Counsel may appear and argue non-dispositive motions via CourtCall, providing a written
20
21
request to so appear is made to the Magistrate Judge's Courtroom Clerk no later than five court days
22
before the noticed hearing date.
All dispositive pre-trial motions shall be filed no later than April 30, 2018, and heard no later
23
24
than June 11, 2018, in Courtroom 2 at 8:30 a.m. before the Honorable Anthony W. Ishii, United States
25
District Court Judge. In scheduling such motions, counsel shall comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 and
26
Local Rules 230 and 260.
27
V.
28
Motions for Summary Judgment or Summary Adjudication
At least 21 days before filing a motion for summary judgment or motion for summary
4
1
adjudication, the parties are ORDERED to meet, in person or by telephone, to confer about the issues to
2
be raised in the motion.
The purpose of the meeting shall be to: 1) avoid filing motions for summary judgment where a
3
4
question of fact exists; 2) determine whether the respondent agrees that the motion has merit in whole or
5
in part; 3) discuss whether issues can be resolved without the necessity of briefing; 4) narrow the issues
6
for review by the court; 5) explore the possibility of settlement before the parties incur the expense of
7
briefing a motion; and 6) to develop a joint statement of undisputed facts.
The moving party SHALL initiate the meeting and SHALL provide a complete, proposed
8
9
statement of undisputed facts at least five days before the conference. The finalized joint statement of
10
undisputed facts SHALL include all facts that the parties agree, for purposes of the motion, may be
11
deemed true. In addition to the requirements of Local Rule 260, the moving party shall file the joint
12
statement of undisputed facts.
In the notice of motion the moving party SHALL certify that the parties have met and conferred
13
14
as ordered above, or set forth a statement of good cause for the failure to meet and confer. Failure to
15
comply may result in the motion being stricken.
16
VI.
Pre-Trial Conference Date
17
August 1, 2018, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 2 before Judge Ishii.
18
The parties are ordered to file a Joint Pretrial Statement pursuant to Local Rule 281(a)(2).
19
The parties are further directed to submit a digital copy of their pretrial statement in Word format,
20
directly to Judge Ishii’s chambers, by email at AWIOrders@caed.uscourts.gov.
Counsels’ attention is directed to Rules 281 and 282 of the Local Rules of Practice for the
21
22
Eastern District of California, as to the obligations of counsel in preparing for the pre-trial conference.
23
The Court will insist upon strict compliance with those rules. In addition to the matters set forth in the
24
Local Rules the Joint Pretrial Statement shall include a Joint Statement of the case to be used by the
25
Court to explain the nature of the case to the jury during voir dire.
26
VII.
27
28
Trial Date
October 2, 2018, at 8:30 a.m. in Courtroom 2 before the Honorable Anthony W. Ishii, United
States District Court Judge.
5
1
A.
This is a jury trial.
2
B.
Counsels' Estimate of Trial Time: 5 days.
3
C.
Counsels' attention is directed to Local Rules of Practice for the Eastern District of
4
California, Rule 285.
5
VIII. Settlement Conference
6
A Settlement Conference is scheduled for March 19, 2018 at 1:30 p.m. located at 510 19th
7
Street, Bakersfield, California. Notwithstanding the requirements of Local Rule 270(b), the settlement
8
conference will be conducted by Magistrate Judge Thurston. If any party prefers that the settlement
9
conference be conducted by a different judicial officer, that party is directed to notify the Court
10
no later than 60 days in advance of the scheduled settlement conference to allow sufficient time for
11
another judicial officer to be assigned to handle the conference. The Court deems the deviation from
12
the Local Rule to be appropriate and in the interests of justice and sound case management.
13
Unless otherwise permitted in advance by the Court, the attorneys who will try the case shall
14
appear at the Settlement Conference with the parties and the person or persons having full authority
15
to negotiate and settle the case on any terms3 at the conference. Consideration of settlement is a
16
serious matter that requires preparation prior to the settlement conference. Set forth below are the
17
procedures the Court will employ, absent good cause, in conducting the conference.
18
At least twenty-one days before the settlement conference, Plaintiff SHALL submit to
19
Defendant via fax or e-mail, a written itemization of damages and a meaningful4 settlement demand
20
which includes a brief explanation of why such a settlement is appropriate. Thereafter, no later than
21
fourteen days before the settlement conference, Defendant SHALL respond, via fax or e-mail, with an
22
acceptance of the offer or with a meaningful counteroffer, which includes a brief explanation of why
23
such a settlement is appropriate.
24
25
26
27
28
3
Insurance carriers, business organizations, and governmental bodies or agencies whose settlement agreements are
subject to approval by legislative bodies, executive committees, boards of directors or the like shall be represented by a
person or persons who occupy high executive positions in the party organization and who will be directly involved in the
process of approval of any settlement offers or agreements. To the extent possible the representative shall have the
authority, if he or she deems it appropriate, to settle the action on terms consistent with the opposing party's most recent
demand.
4
“Meaningful” means that the offer is reasonably calculated to settle the case on terms acceptable to the offering
party. “Meaningful” does not include an offer which the offering party knows will not be acceptable to the other party. If,
however, the offering party is only willing to offer a settlement which it knows the other party will not accept, this should
trigger a recognition the case is not in a settlement posture and the parties should confer about continuing or vacating the
settlement conference via stipulation.
6
If settlement is not achieved, each party SHALL attach copies of their settlement offers to their
1
2
Confidential Settlement Conference Statement, as described below. Copies of these documents shall
3
not be filed on the court docket.
CONFIDENTIAL SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
4
At least five court days before the settlement conference, the parties shall submit, directly to
5
6
Judge Thurston's chambers by e-mail to JLTOrders@caed.uscourts.gov, a Confidential Settlement
7
Conference Statement. The statement should not be filed with the Clerk of the Court nor served on
8
any other party, although the parties may file a Notice of Lodging of Settlement Conference
9
Statement. Each statement shall be clearly marked "confidential" with the date and time of the
10
Settlement Conference indicated prominently thereon.
11
The Confidential Settlement Conference Statement shall include the following:
12
A.
A brief statement of the facts of the case.
13
B.
A brief statement of the claims and defenses, i.e., statutory or other grounds upon which
14
the claims are founded; a forthright evaluation of the parties' likelihood of prevailing on
15
the claims and defenses; and a description of the major issues in dispute.
16
C.
A summary of the proceedings to date.
17
D.
An estimate of the cost and time to be expended for further discovery, pretrial and trial.
18
E.
The relief sought.
19
F.
The party's position on settlement, including present demands and offers and a history of
past settlement discussions, offers and demands.
20
21
IX.
Requests for Bifurcation, Appointment of Special Master, or other
22
Techniques to Shorten Trial
23
Not applicable at this time.
24
X.
There are no pending related matters.
25
26
27
28
Related Matters Pending
XI.
Compliance with Federal Procedure
All counsel are expected to familiarize themselves with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
and the Local Rules of Practice of the Eastern District of California, and to keep abreast of any
7
1
amendments thereto. The Court must insist upon compliance with these Rules if it is to efficiently
2
handle its increasing case load, and sanctions will be imposed for failure to follow the Rules as
3
provided in both the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of Practice for the Eastern
4
District of California.
5
XII.
6
Effect of this Order
The foregoing order represents the best estimate of the court and counsel as to the agenda most
7
suitable to dispose of this case. The trial date reserved is specifically reserved for this case. If the
8
parties determine at any time that the schedule outlined in this order cannot be met, counsel are ordered
9
to notify the court immediately of that fact so that adjustments may be made, either by stipulation or by
10
11
subsequent status conference.
The dates set in this Order are considered to be firm and will not be modified absent a
12
showing of good cause even if the request to modify is made by stipulation. Stipulations
13
extending the deadlines contained herein will not be considered unless they are accompanied by
14
affidavits or declarations, and where appropriate attached exhibits, which establish good cause
15
for granting the relief requested.
16
Failure to comply with this order may result in the imposition of sanctions.
17
18
19
20
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
December 16, 2016
/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?