Martin v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation

Filing 19

STATUS (PRETRIAL SCHEDULING) ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 12/11/12: Designation of Expert Witnesses due by 2/18/2013. Discovery due by 1/17/2013. Dispositive Motions filed by 7/11/2013. Final Pretrial Conference set for 10/3/2013 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 25 (KJN) before Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman. Jury Trial set for 10/21/2013 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 25 (KJN) before Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman. (Kaminski, H)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

BARBARA MARTIN,

11

Plaintiff,

No. 2:12-cv-01979 KJN

12
v.
13
14

NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER
CORPORATION,

15

Defendant.

STATUS (PRETRIAL SCHEDULING) ORDER
/
16
17

READ THIS ORDER CAREFULLY. IT CONTAINS IMPORTANT DATES

18

THAT THE COURT WILL STRICTLY ENFORCE AND WITH WHICH ALL COUNSEL

19

AND PARTIES MUST COMPLY.1 FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE TERMS OF THIS

20

ORDER MAY RESULT IN THE IMPOSITION OF MONETARY AND ALL OTHER

21

SANCTIONS WITHIN THE POWER OF THE COURT, INCLUDING DISMISSAL OR AN

22

ORDER OF JUDGMENT.

23
1

24
25
26

This case was removed from state court on July 20, 2012. (Dkt. No. 1.) This matter
proceeds before the undersigned as a result of the parties’ voluntary consent to the jurisdiction of
the undersigned for all proceedings in this case (Dkt. Nos. 7, 11), including trial and entry of
final judgment, and an order issued October 23, 2012 (Dkt. No. 12). See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1);
Fed. R. Civ. P. 73; E. Dist. Local Rules 301, 305. Therefore, the parties’ final pretrial conference
and the trial itself will proceed before the undersigned.
1

1

On December 6, 2012, this case was before the undersigned for a status (pretrial

2

scheduling) conference. Attorney Paul Scheele appeared telephonically on behalf of plaintiff

3

Barbara Martin (“plaintiff”). Attorney Kara Abelson appeared telephonically on behalf of

4

defendant National Railroad Passenger Corporation (“defendant”). The parties filed a Joint

5

Status Report. (Joint Status Report, Dkt. No. 14.) The court enters the following scheduling

6

order:

7

NATURE OF CASE

8

On May 24, 2012, plaintiff filed a personal injury action in state court, alleging

9

that she was injured when she fell from a wheelchair at the Sacramento Amtrak station on May

10

25, 2010. (Compl., Dkt. No. 1 at 4.) On July 30, 2012, defendant removed the action to federal

11

court. (Notice of Removal, Dkt. No. 1.) Plaintiff seeks damages for “wage loss, loss of use of

12

property, hospital and medical expenses, general damage, property damage, and loss of earning

13

capacity.” (Joint Status Report at 2.)

14

SERVICE OF PROCESS

15

Service of process is undisputed. Defendant filed an Answer in state court (Dkt.

16

No. 1 at 9-10) and filed a demand for a trial by jury. (Demand for Jury, Dkt. No. 3.)

17

JOINDER OF PARTIES/AMENDMENTS

18

No further joinder of parties or amendments to pleadings will be permitted except

19

with leave of court and upon a showing of good cause.

20

JURISDICTION/VENUE

21

Jurisdiction and venue are undisputed and are hereby found to be proper. See 28

22

U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1391(b). The parties represent (Joint Status Report at 2) that the United States

23

owns more than 50% of defendant’s capital stock. 28 U.S.C. § 1349.

24

MOTION HEARING SCHEDULES

25
26

All law and motion, except as to discovery-related matters, shall be completed by
July 11, 2013. The word “completed” in this context means that all law and motion matters must
2

1

be heard by the above date. Counsel (and/or pro se parties)2 are cautioned to refer to the Local

2

Rules regarding the requirements for noticing such motions on the court’s regularly scheduled

3

law and motion calendar. This paragraph does not preclude motions for continuances, temporary

4

restraining orders or other emergency applications, and is subject to any special scheduling set

5

forth in the “MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS” paragraph below.

6

The parties should keep in mind that the purpose of law and motion is to narrow

7

and refine the legal issues raised by the case and to dispose of by pretrial motion those issues that

8

are susceptible to resolution without trial. To accomplish that purpose, the parties need to

9

identify and fully research the issues presented by the case, and then examine those issues in light

10

of the evidence obtained through discovery. If it appears to counsel after examining the legal

11

issues and facts that an issue can be resolved by pretrial motion, counsel are to file the

12

appropriate motion consistent with the law and motion cutoff set forth above.

13

ALL PURELY LEGAL ISSUES ARE TO BE RESOLVED BY TIMELY

14

PRETRIAL MOTION. Counsel are reminded that motions in limine are procedural devices

15

designed to address the admissibility of evidence. COUNSEL ARE CAUTIONED THAT THE

16

COURT WILL LOOK WITH DISFAVOR UPON SUBSTANTIVE MOTIONS PRESENTED

17

UNDER THE GUISE OF MOTIONS IN LIMINE AT THE TIME OF TRIAL.

18

DISCOVERY

19
20

If not already completed, initial disclosures made pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 26(a)(1) shall be completed on or before January 17, 2013.
Non-expert discovery shall be completed by April 30, 2013. Expert discovery

21
22

shall be completed by June 14, 2013. The word “completed” means that all discovery shall have

23

been conducted so that all depositions have been taken and any disputes relative to discovery

24

shall have been resolved by appropriate order if necessary and, where discovery has been

25
2

26

Any reference to “counsel” in this order includes parties appearing without counsel,
otherwise referred to as appearing in propria persona or pro se.
3

1

ordered, the order has been complied with.

2

Motions to compel discovery must be noticed on the undersigned’s law and

3

motion calendar in accordance with the Local Rules. Motions to compel non-expert discovery

4

must be heard not later than April 9, 2013. Motions to compel expert discovery must be heard

5

not later than May 30, 2013.

6

EXPERT DISCLOSURES

7

The parties are to designate in writing and file with the court, and serve upon all

8

other parties, the names of all experts they propose to tender at trial, pursuant to the following

9

schedule: initial expert disclosures shall be made on or before February 18, 2013; rebuttal expert

10

disclosures shall be made on or before March 18, 2013.

11

An expert witness not appearing on such lists will not be permitted to testify

12

unless the party offering the witness demonstrates: (a) that the necessity of the witness could not

13

have been reasonably anticipated at the time the lists were exchanged; (b) the court and opposing

14

counsel were promptly notified upon discovery of the witness; and (c) that the witness was

15

promptly proffered for deposition. Failure to provide the information required along with the

16

expert designation may lead to preclusion of the expert’s testimony or other appropriate

17

sanctions.

18

For the purposes of this scheduling order, experts are defined as “percipient” and

19

“Rule 26” experts. Both types of experts shall be listed. Percipient experts are persons who,

20

because of their expertise, have rendered expert opinions in the normal course of their work

21

duties or observations pertinent to the issues in the case. Another term for their opinions are

22

“historical opinions.” Percipient experts are experts who, unless also designated as Rule 26

23

experts, are limited to testifying to their historical opinions and the reasons for them. That is,

24

they may be asked to testify about their opinions given in the past and the whys and wherefores

25

concerning the development of those opinions. However, they may not be asked to render a

26

current opinion for the purposes of the litigation.
4

1

Rule 26 experts, who may also be percipient experts, shall be specifically

2

designated by a party to be a testifying expert for the purposes of the litigation. A Rule 26 expert

3

may express opinions formed for the purposes of the litigation. A party designating a Rule 26

4

expert will be assumed to have acquired the express permission of the witness to be so listed.

5

The parties shall comply with the information disclosure provisions of Federal

6

Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) for any expert, who is in whole or in part designated as a

7

Rule 26 expert. This information is due at the time of designation. Failure to supply the required

8

information may result in the Rule 26 expert being stricken. All Rule 26 experts are to be fully

9

prepared to render an informed opinion at the time of designation so that they may fully

10

participate in any deposition taken by the opposing party. Rule 26 experts will not be permitted

11

to testify at trial as to any information gathered or evaluated, or opinion formed, which should

12

have been reasonably available at the time of designation. The court will closely scrutinize for

13

discovery abuse opinions offered at deposition that differ markedly in nature and/or in bases from

14

those expressed in the mandatory information disclosure.

15

FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE

16

The final pretrial conference is set before United States Magistrate Judge Kendall

17

J. Newman on October 3, 2013, at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom No. 25. Counsel are cautioned that

18

counsel appearing at the pretrial conference will in fact try the matter. Counsel for all parties are

19

to be fully prepared for trial at the time of the pretrial conference, with no matters remaining to

20

be accomplished except production of witnesses for oral testimony. Counsel are referred to

21

Local Rules 281 and 282 relating to pretrial statements and conferences. A FAILURE TO

22

COMPLY WITH LOCAL RULES 281 AND 282 WILL BE GROUNDS FOR SANCTIONS.

23

Notwithstanding Local Rule 281, the parties shall submit a joint pretrial statement

24

not later than fourteen (14) days prior to the pretrial conference. The joint pretrial statement shall

25

conform with the requirements of Local Rule 281(b). The undisputed facts and disputed factual

26

issues shall be set forth in two separate sections. The parties should identify those facts which
5

1

are relevant to each separate cause of action. In this regard, the parties are to number each

2

individual fact or factual issues. Where the parties are unable to agree as to what factual issues

3

are properly before the court for trial, they should nevertheless list in the section on “DISPUTED

4

FACTUAL ISSUES” all issues asserted by any of the parties and explain by parenthetical the

5

controversy concerning each issue. The parties should keep in mind that, in general, each fact

6

should relate or correspond to an element of the relevant cause of action. The parties should also

7

keep in mind that the purpose of listing the disputed factual issues is to apprise the court and all

8

parties about the precise issues that will be litigated at trial. The court is not interested in a

9

listing of all evidentiary facts underlying the issues that are in dispute.3 The joint statement of

10

undisputed facts and disputed factual issues is to be filed with the court concurrently with the

11

filing of the joint pretrial statement.

12

Pursuant to Local Rule 281(b), the parties are required to provide with their

13

pretrial statement a list of witnesses and exhibits that they propose to proffer at trial, no matter

14

for what purpose. These lists shall not be contained in the pretrial statement itself, but shall be

15

attached as separate documents to be used as addenda to the final pretrial order. Plaintiff’s

16

exhibits shall be listed numerically; defendants’ exhibits shall be listed alphabetically. The

17

pretrial order will contain a stringent standard for the proffering of witnesses and exhibits at trial

18

not listed in the pretrial order. Counsel are cautioned that the standard will be strictly applied.

19

On the other hand, the listing of exhibits or witnesses which counsel do not intend or use will be

20

viewed as an abuse of the court’s processes.

21

Counsel (and pro se parties) are reminded that, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

22

Procedure 16, it will be their duty at the pretrial conference to aid the court in: (a) formulation

23

and simplification of issues and the elimination of meritless claims or defenses; (b) settling of

24

facts that should be properly admitted; and (c) avoidance of unnecessary proof and cumulative

25
3

26

However, with respect to the listing of undisputed facts, the court will accept
agreements as to evidentiary facts.
6

1

evidence. The parties must prepare their joint pretrial statement and participate in good faith at

2

the pretrial conference with these aims in mind. A FAILURE TO DO SO MAY RESULT IN

3

THE IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS, which may include monetary sanctions, orders precluding

4

proof, eliminations of claims or defenses, or such other sanctions as the court deems appropriate.

5

TRIAL SETTING

6

Defendant has demanded a jury trial in this case. (Dkt. No. 3.) A jury trial is set

7

to commence before Magistrate Judge Newman on October 21, 2013, at 10:00 a.m., in

8

Courtroom No. 25. The court anticipates that the trial will take approximately three days.

9

SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE & VOLUNTARY DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROGRAM

10

The Joint Status Report indicates that the parties wish to mediate the dispute.

11

(Joint Status Report at 3.) As discussed during the Conference, if the parties wish to participate

12

in the Voluntary Dispute Resolution Program (“VDRP”), they must file a Stipulation and Order

13

for VDRP Referral pursuant to Eastern District Local Rule 271(i)(1) and (2).

14

If the parties choose not to participate in VDRP but still believe that a settlement

15

conference would be beneficial, they shall file with the court a written stipulation to participate in

16

a proposed settlement conference. The stipulation should include at least three to five potential

17

conference dates for the court to select from. The stipulation should be filed at least sixty (60)

18

days prior to the proposed settlement conference dates. The stipulation should specify whether

19

the parties consent to the undersigned serving as both the settlement judge and the trial judge in

20

this case, or, alternatively, whether the parties prefer a magistrate judge other than the

21

undersigned to conduct the settlement conference.4 The parties shall file settlement conference

22

statements drafted in conformity with Local Rule 270 no later than fourteen days before any

23

settlement conference.

24

////

25
4

26

Should the parties wish for the undersigned to conduct a settlement conference, they
shall file appropriate written waivers of disqualification in accordance with Local Rule 270(b).
7

1
2

MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
The parties are reminded that pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4), this order shall

3

not be modified except by leave of court upon a showing of good cause. Counsel are cautioned

4

that changes to any of the scheduled dates will necessarily result in changes to all other dates.

5

Thus, even where good cause has been shown, the court will not grant a request to change the

6

discovery cutoff date without modifying the pretrial and trial dates.

7

Agreement by the parties pursuant to stipulation does not constitute good cause.

8

Nor does the unavailability of witnesses or counsel, except in extraordinary circumstances,

9

constitute good cause.

10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: December 11, 2012

12
13
14

_____________________________________
KENDALL J. NEWMAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
8