Mammen et al v. County of Sacramento et al
Filing
116
AMENDED PRETRIAL CONFERENCE ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 4/24/18. Trial briefs may be E-filed with the court no later than 5/14/18. The joint set of jury instructions shall be lodged on or before 5/14/18. In limine motions shall be E-filed separately on or before 5/11/18. Opposition briefs shall be E-filed on or before 5/16/18. A Settlement Conference is SET for 5/3/2018 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 26 (AC) before Magistrate Judge Allison Claire. Trial will commence on or about 5/21/2018, at 9:00 AM in Courtroom (6) (JAM) before District Judge John A. Mendez. The parties estimate six (6) to seven (7) court days for trial. (Kastilahn, A)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
A.P. (a minor); ROBIN MAMMEN and )
LARRY MAMMEN individually and as )
Guardian ad Litem for A.P.,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
COMMUNITY CARE LICENSING, COUNTY )
OF SACRAMENTO, STEPHANIE LYNCH, )
LUIS VILLA; MICHELLE CALLEJAS,
)
DEBRA WILLIAMS, CRAIG LARKIN,
)
RENAE RODOCKER,
)
)
Defendants.
)
Case No. 2:13-cv-01588 JAM-AC
AMENDED PRETRIAL
CONFERENCE ORDER
Pursuant to court order, a Pretrial Conference was held on
20
April 13, 2018 before Judge John Mendez.
21
as counsel for plaintiffs; Amanda L. McDermott appeared as counsel
22
for defendants.
23
by the parties, the Court makes the following amended findings and
24
orders:
After hearing and submission of additional papers
I. JURISDICTION/VENUE
25
26
Jay T. Jambeck appeared
Jurisdiction is predicated upon 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1341,
27
and has previously been found to be proper by order of this court,
28
as has venue.
Those orders are confirmed.
1
1
2
II. JURY/NON-JURY
Both parties have demanded a jury trial.
3
III. STATEMENT TO BE READ TO JURY
4
Seven (7) days prior to trial the parties shall E-file a joint
5
statement of the case that may be read to the jury at the beginning
6
of jury selection.
7
IV. UNDISPUTED FACTS
8
1.
Anthony is an individual with a disability.
9
2.
Anthony has been diagnosed with autistic disorder and
10
mental retardation.
11
3.
The time period at issue begins in September of 2011.
12
4.
Anthony was four years old in September of 2011.
13
5.
In 2009, Anthony was adjudged a dependent of Sacramento
14
County.
15
6.
As a dependent minor, the Sacramento County Department of
16
Health and Human Services through the Child Protective Services
17
(CPS) division was responsible for determining a plan for permanent
18
placement of Anthony and was responsible for his care, safety, and
19
well-being.
20
7.
21
family.
22
8.
23
24
25
26
27
28
In November of 2009, Anthony was placed with the Mammen
Anthony began occupation therapy with Candice Hawkins in
April of 2011.
9.
Sometime in late August or early September of 2011,
Anthony’s dependency case transferred to the CPS Adoptions Unit.
10.
Anthony’s dependency case was in the CPS Adoptions Unit
during the time period at issue.
11.
During the relevant period, Renae Rodocker was a social
2
1
worker in the CPS Adoptions Unit.
2
3
12.
On or around September 8, 2011, Renae Rodocker was
assigned to Anthony’s dependency case.
4
13.
During the relevant period, Debra Williams was a
5
Supervisor in the CPS Adoptions Unit and acted as a Supervisor to
6
Renae Rodocker.
7
8
14.
Manager at CPS, wherein she oversaw the Adoptions Unit.
9
10
During the relevant period, Stephanie Lynch was a Program
15.
During the relevant period, Luis Villa was a Division
Manager at CPS, wherein he oversaw the Adoptions Unit.
11
16.
On or around October 31, 2012, Anthony's adoption by
12
Robin and Larry Mammen was finalized. As of that date, he was no
13
longer a dependent of Sacramento County.
14
15
17.
law.
16
17
18
County employees were at all times acting under color of
V. DISPUTED FACTUAL ISSUES
A.
Plaintiffs’ Disputed Issues of Fact:
1.
Whether A.P.’s disabling condition was ameliorated by the
19
wrapping intervention and the other interventions on the sensory
20
diet.
21
2.
22
to A.P.
23
3.
24
25
26
27
28
Whether the County denied other therapeutic interventions
Whether the County employees retaliated against A.P. and
Larry and Robin Mammen.
4.
Whether A.P. was a safety risk when appropriate
interventions were not provided to him.
5.
Whether A.P. suffered physical and emotional harm as a
result of the failure to allow recommended interventions.
3
1
2
6.
Whether Larry and Robin Mammen suffered emotional harm as
a result of the retaliation by County employees
3
7.
Whether individual Defendants were deliberately
4
indifferent to the self-harm that A.P. inflicts without appropriate
5
sensory interventions.
6
8.
Whether the County intervened in the provision of A.P.'s
7
OT services without due consideration or an adequate assessment of
8
the nature of the therapeutic techniques, their objective and
9
purpose, and the safety risks.
10
11
9.
without sufficient basis.
12
13
10.
Whether the County characterized the technique as neglect
without sufficient basis.
14
15
Whether the County characterized the technique as abuse
11.
Whether the County and/or its employees violated the
following statutes:
16
a.
42 U.S.C. § 1983;
17
b.
42 U.S.C. § Section 12203(b);
18
c.
California Government Code Section 815.2.
19
20
B.
Defendants’ Disputed Issues of Fact:
1.
Whether Renae Rodocker, Debra Williams, Stephanie Lynch,
21
or some other County employee instructed Robin and Larry Mammen to
22
cease any and all wrapping or restraining of A.P., and when that
23
instruction occurred.
24
2.
Whether the County stated at a juvenile court hearing,
25
attended by Robin Mammen and her counsel, on October 6, 2011, that
26
the only limitation placed on A.P.’s sensory diet by CPS was as to
27
the use of the wrapping technique.
28
3.
Whether Renae Rodocker, Debra Williams, or Stephanie
4
1
Lynch instructed Robin or Larry Mammen not to use any of the
2
sensory diet techniques.
3
4.
Whether Renae Rodocker, Debra Williams, or Stephanie
4
Lynch prevented A.P. from access to treatment modalities other than
5
those on the sensory diet.
6
5.
Whether A.P. faced a substantial risk of harm if not able
7
to use the sensory diet techniques other than the wrapping
8
technique.
9
6.
Whether Renae Rodocker, Debra Williams, or Stephanie
10
Lynch knew that A.P. faced a substantial risk of harm if not able
11
to use the sensory diet techniques other than the wrapping
12
technique.
13
7.
Whether Renae Rodocker, Debra Williams, or Stephanie
14
Lynch were deliberately indifferent to a substantial risk of harm
15
faced by A.P. if not able to use the sensory diet techniques other
16
than the wrapping technique.
17
8.
Whether Renae Rodocker, Debra Williams, or Stephanie
18
Lynch knew that A.P. faced a substantial risk of harm if not able
19
to use treatment modalities other than those on the sensory diet.
20
9.
Whether Renae Rodocker, Debra Williams, or Stephanie
21
Lynch were deliberately indifferent to a substantial risk of harm
22
faced by A.P. if not able to use treatment modalities other than
23
those on the sensory diet.
24
25
26
10.
Whether A.P. was harmed because he was not able to use
the sensory diet techniques other than the wrapping technique.
11.
The period of time, if any, for which A.P. was prevented
27
from using the sensory diet techniques other than the wrapping
28
technique.
5
1
12.
Whether A.P. was harmed because he was not able to use
2
other treatment modalities recommended by his occupational
3
therapist.
4
13.
The period of time, if any, for which A.P. was prevented
5
from using other treatment modalities recommended by his
6
occupational therapist.
7
14.
Whether the County incorporates the provisions of the
8
California Department of Social Services (“DSS”) Manuals into its
9
own policies and procedures and requires its social workers to
10
11
follow the provisions of those manuals.
15.
Whether the policies, procedures, and practices, of the
12
County of Sacramento prohibit use of any kind of restraint,
13
holding, or wrapping technique on a dependent minor.
14
16.
Whether Renae Rodocker, Debra Williams, or Stephanie
15
Lynch investigated the techniques and protocols in the sensory
16
diet.
17
17.
Whether Renae Rodocker, Debra Williams, Stephanie Lynch,
18
or Luis Villa were negligent, and whether that negligence resulted
19
in harm to A.P.
20
21
22
18.
Whether Renae Rodocker, Debra Williams, Stephanie Lynch,
or Luis Villa are entitled to discretionary immunity.
19.
Whether any County employee coerced, intimidated,
23
threatened, or interfered with Robin or Larry Mammen in their
24
exercise of any ADA protected activity.
25
20.
Whether Robin or Larry Mammen were harmed or injured by
26
any coercion, intimidation, threats, or interference by any County
27
employee.
28
21.
Whether the State of California Community Care Licensing
6
1
division issued a citation to the Mammens for violating A.P.’s
2
personal rights based on their use of the wrapping technique on
3
A.P.
4
5
22.
Whether the Mammens verbally agreed to cease use of the
wrapping technique on A.P.
6
23.
Whether the County determined that the verbal agreement
7
made by the Mammens that they would not utilize the wrapping
8
technique on A.P. was sufficient to no longer require a signed
9
Corrective Action Plan.
10
24.
Whether County policies and state regulations require the
11
reporting of possible violations of state regulations to the State
12
of California Community Care Licensing division.
13
25.
Whether A.P. is entitled to an award of punitive damages
14
against Renae Rodocker, Debra Williams, Stephanie Lynch, or Luis
15
Villa.
16
26.
Whether A.P. is entitled to compensatory damages.
17
27.
Whether Robin or Larry Mammen are entitled to
18
compensatory damages.
19
VI. DISPUTED EVIDENTIARY ISSUES
20
1.
Plaintiff disputes the relevance or admissibility of
21
testimony by Defendant’s expert witness and may file a motion in
22
limine as to that issue.
23
2.
Plaintiff disputes the relevance or admissibility of any
24
allegations that the Mammens are using any of their children for
25
money or “selling diapers” as claimed by CPS and anticipates filing
26
a motion in limine in that regard.
27
///
28
///
7
1
2
3
4
5
Defendants anticipate motions in limine on the following
subjects:
1.
The relevancy and/or admissibility of the Disability
Compliance Office report and their findings and conclusions.
2.
Testimony by Robin and/or Larry Mammen regarding the
6
proximate cause of any emotional distress or physical injury
7
suffered by A.P.
8
9
10
3.
Evidence and/or argument that the County of Sacramento
may indemnify individual defendants.
4.
Evidence and/or argument that the County of Sacramento
11
and/or any of its employees violated A.P.’s constitutional or
12
statutory rights in preventing the use of the wrapping technique on
13
A.P. as that issue was already determined as a matter of law on
14
summary judgment.
15
5.
Evidence and/or argument that pertain to the dismissed
16
claims for relief for ADA Discrimination or violations of the
17
Rehabilitation Act or the Unruh Act.
18
19
20
21
22
6.
Evidence and/or argument regarding compensatory damages
suffered by Robin or Larry Mammen.
7.
Evidence and/or argument regarding physical injury and/or
emotional distress suffered by A.P.
8.
Evidence and/or argument that A.P.’s disability,
23
condition, or behaviors were improved by use of the wrapping
24
technique, the other techniques/protocols on the sensory diet, or
25
other treatments allegedly prevented or delayed by CPS.
26
9.
Evidence and/or argument that A.P.’s disability,
27
condition, or behaviors regressed or worsened by not having use of
28
the wrapping technique, the other techniques/protocols on the
8
1
sensory diet, or other treatments allegedly prevented or delayed by
2
CPS.
3
4
VII. RELIEF SOUGHT
Plaintiff A.P. seeks general damages.
Plaintiffs Larry and
5
Robin Mammen seek general damages for retaliation.
6
seeks punitive damages.
7
8
Defendants seek judgment in their favor, as well as fees and
costs.
9
10
Plaintiff also
VIII. POINTS OF LAW
Trial briefs may be E-filed with the court no later than May
11
14, 2018.
Any points of law not previously argued to the Court
12
should be briefed in the trial briefs.
13
14
IX. ABANDONED ISSUES
In addition to the claims that were dismissed by the Court in
15
its ruling on summary judgment (ECF No. 101), plaintiffs also
16
abandon the Monell liability cause of action (First claim).
17
Defendants have not abandoned any affirmative defenses.
18
X. WITNESSES
19
Plaintiffs anticipate calling the following witnesses:
20
1.
Robbin Mammen
21
2.
Larry Mammen
22
3.
Dr. Anubha Khanna
23
4.
Dr. Ashutosh Raina
24
5.
Dr. Paula Solomon
25
6.
Denise Henderson
26
7.
Cheryl Bennett
27
8.
Candice Hawkins
28
9.
Renae Rodocker
9
1
10.
Jeanine Lopez
2
11.
Tim Foley
3
12.
Dr. Jessica Litwin
4
13.
Dr. Mark Foster
5
14.
Dr. Elysa Marcos
6
Defendants anticipate calling the following witnesses:
7
Non-expert Witnesses:
8
1.
Renae Rodocker
9
2.
Debra Williams
10
3.
Stephanie Lynch
11
4.
Luis Villa
12
5.
Jeannine Lopez
13
6.
Michelle Callejas
14
7.
Joseph Sison, M.D.
15
8.
Candice Hawkins
16
9.
Jennifer Bloom
17
10.
Dana Peters
18
11.
Reynaldo Carboni
19
12.
Leon Geoff (“Jeff”) Wells
20
13.
Jason Lindo
21
14.
Dana Sarmiento
22
Expert Witnesses:
23
1.
Sharrell Blakeley
24
2.
Renae Rodocker
25
3.
Debra Williams
26
4.
Stephanie Lynch
27
5.
Luis Villa
28
Each party may call a witness designated by the other.
10
1
A.
2
No other witnesses will be permitted to testify unless:
(1)
The party offering the witness demonstrates that the
3
witness is for the purpose of rebutting evidence which could not be
4
reasonably anticipated at the Pretrial Conference, or
5
(2)
The witness was discovered after the Pretrial
6
Conference and the proffering party makes the showing required in
7
"B" below.
8
9
B.
Upon the post-Pretrial discovery of witnesses, the
attorney shall promptly inform the court and opposing parties of
10
the existence of the unlisted witnesses so that the court may
11
consider at trial whether the witnesses shall be permitted to
12
testify.
13
14
(1)
(2)
(3)
If time permitted, counsel proffered the witnesses
for deposition;
19
20
The court and opposing counsel were promptly
notified upon discovery of the witnesses;
17
18
The witnesses could not reasonably have been
discovered prior to Pretrial;
15
16
The evidence will not be permitted unless:
(4)
If time did not permit, a reasonable summary of the
witnesses' testimony was provided opposing counsel.
21
XI. EXHIBITS, SCHEDULES AND SUMMARIES
22
Plaintiffs intend to introduce the following exhibits:
23
1.
24
Confidential Investigation Report and attachments dated
2/28/12;
25
2.
Occupational Therapy Initial Evaluation;
26
3.
Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Services Clinic Short
27
28
Term Assessment dated September 2011;
4.
Selection and Implementation Report dated 12/15/11;
11
1
5.
Letter from Dr. Anubha Khanna dated September 1, 2011;
2
6.
Amended ADA Grievance dated September 4, 2011;
3
7.
Sensory diet letter dated September 12, 2011;
4
8.
Email from Robin Mammen dated September 12, 2011;
5
9.
Letter from Dr. Anubha Khanna dated September 13, 2011;
6
10.
Letter from Dr. Ashutosh Raina dated September 14, 2011;
7
11.
Corrective Action plan dated February 2012;
8
12.
Email dated October 13, 2011 from Stephanie Lynch;
9
13.
Email from Rodocker dated November 2, 2011;
10
14.
Email from Rodocker dated February 28, 2012;
11
15.
ADA Grievance Sign-in Sheet dated November 15, 2011;
12
16.
Letter from Luis Villa dated November 22, 2011;
13
17.
Email from Luis Villa dated December 9, 2011;
14
18.
Email from Robin Mammen dated December 2, 2011;
15
19.
CPS Log note 9/19/2011;
16
20.
CPS log note 10/7/2011;
17
21.
Deep Pressure Proprioceptive Technique;
18
22.
Report of Dr. Paula Solomon;
19
23.
Email from Laura Dunkleberger dated September 12, 2011;
20
24.
Email from Robin Mammen Dated September 19, 2011;
21
25.
Email from Laura Dunkleberger dated September 22, 2011;
22
26.
Email from Robin Mammen dated September 22, 2011;
23
27.
Email from Robin Mammen dated September 28, 2011;
24
28.
Email from Debra Williams dated September 14, 2011;
25
29.
Email from Rodocker dated September 19, 2011;
26
30.
A day in the life of A.P.;
27
31.
Email from Lopez dated September 22, 2011;
28
32.
Email from Denise Henderson dated September 22, 2011;
12
1
33.
Email from Jennine Lopez dated October 12, 2011;
2
34.
Email from Henderson dated November 6, 2011;
3
35.
Email from Rodocker dated November 9, 2011;
4
36.
Email thread dated November 10, 2011 re: proprioceptive
5
input summary;
6
37.
7
Email from Bennett dated November 10, 2011 and
attachment;
8
38.
Email from Williams dated November 16, 2011;
9
39.
Email thread dated December 2, 2011 re: A.P.;
10
40.
Email from Robin Mammen dated December 29, 2011;
11
41.
Email from Robin Mammen dated December 30, 2011;
12
42.
Email thread from Stephanie Lynch dated January 5, 2012;
13
43.
Email from Robin Mammen dated January 26, 2012;
14
44.
Email from Robin Mammen dated February 14, 2012;
15
45.
Email from Henderson dated March 27, 2012;
16
46.
Rebuttal exhibits; and
17
47.
Impeachment exhibits.
18
Defendants intend to introduce the following exhibits:
19
A.
20
CPS Delivered Service Logs 2/26/09 – 10/13/12 [COS 2141-
2291];
21
B.
Sensory Diet dated 9/12/11 [COS 1926-28];
22
C.
Juvenile Court transcript dated 10/6/2011 [COS 4924-39];
23
D.
Juvenile Court transcript dated 10/27/2011 [COS 4940-55];
24
E.
Initial Assessment Evaluation by OT Hawkins [PLTF 65-69];
25
F.
Progress Report by OT Hawkins dated 7/18/11 [Hawkins Ex
G.
OT Progress Report dated 10/21/11 [Hawkins Ex 12];
26
3];
27
28
///
13
1
2
H.
[Hawkins Ex 5];
3
4
Correspondence from Candice Hawkins dated 10/28/11
I.
Correspondence between Hawkins and Rodocker in Nov. 2011
[COS 3577-80];
5
J.
OT Progress Report dated 1/6/12 [COS 3910-12];
6
K.
Sensory Diet dated November 14, 2011 [Hawkins Ex 12];
7
L.
OT Progress Report dated 1/8/14 [Hawkins Ex 12];
8
M.
CCL Investigation Report [COS 2056-57];
9
N.
Correspondence by Luis Villa 11/22/11 [PLTF 96-97];
10
O.
Corrective Action Plan dated 2/17/12 [COS 982-983];
11
P.
Corrective Action Plan dated 3/1/12 [COS 970];
12
Q.
Joseph Sison email to Luis Villa dated 4/10/12 [COS
13
2049];
14
R.
CPS Division Wide Social Worker Standards [COS 1865-67];
15
S.
Adoptions Social Worker Standards [COS 1902-07];
16
T.
Emergency Response Social Worker Standards [COS 1868-76];
17
U.
CPS Handbook 405-1 Legal Mandates [COS 4741-45];
18
V.
CPS Handbook 405-2 Assessing the Child and Determining
19
the Necessary Level [COS 4751-61];
20
21
W.
[COS 4769-71];
22
23
X.
Y.
28
CPS Handbook 425-1.1 Disclosure of Child's Medical and
Psychosocial [COS 4839-45];
26
27
CPS Handbook 405-8 Identifying and Reporting Concerns in
Out of Home Placement [COS 4772-75];
24
25
CPS Handbook 405-7 Multi-Ethnic Placement Act (MEPA-IEP)
Z.
CPS Handbook 420-9 Assessing FCL Regulations [COS 4956-
AA.
Unconventional Treatments Memo [COS 4965-66];
64];
14
1
BB.
Mental Health Practice Guidelines Memo [COS 4967-68];
2
CC.
Mental Health Practice Guidelines [COS 4969-70];
3
DD.
Division 31 Sections 300-400 [COS 4876-4923];
4
EE.
ER Referral 9/9/11 [COS 2130-34];
5
FF.
Email from Mammen to Rodocker re Rx change 9/14/11 [COS
6
7
8
1932];
GG.
AP Medical Records re: approval of Rx change (Lexipro)
[PLTF 568];
9
HH.
Application regarding Rx [COS 1130-37];
10
II.
Juvenile Court Order re Rx [COS 1125-26];
11
JJ.
Elk Grove Unified IEP Team Amendments Page dated 10/21/11
12
13
14
15
16
17
[COS 3024];
KK.
Email Correspondence between Alta and Rodocker re ISIS
request for cuddle swing dated 1/4/12 [COS 3914];
LL.
ISIS Healthcare Request to Alta Regional for Cuddle Swing
dated 12/29/11 [COS 3913];
MM.
Email correspondence between Robin Mammen, Renae
18
Rodocker, and the Kendall School re use of physical prompts dated
19
2/22/12 - 3/1/12 [COS 4114-18];
20
21
22
23
24
25
NN.
Email re CCL approval of physical prompts dated 3/1/12
[COS 4113];
OO.
Email correspondence re approval of physical prompts
dated 3-1-2012 [COS 2949];
PP.
Email re finalization of Jasmine’s adoption dated 3/20/12
[COS 4180];
26
QQ.
Email correspondence re request for vest dated 4/17-19/12
27
[COS 4317-18];
28
RR.
Email correspondence re vest dated 4/25/12 [COS 4319];
15
1
SS.
ISIS request for vest dated 5/2/12 [COS 4322-23];
2
TT.
Email correspondence with CCL re vest dated 5/17-18/12
3
4
5
6
[COS 4362];
UU.
Email between Robin Mammen and Renae Rodocker dated
5/31/12 [COS 4373];
VV.
California Department of Social Services, Community Care
7
Licensing Division, Manual of Policies and Procedures, Title 22,
8
Div. 6, Ch. 9.5 - Foster Family Homes, Art. 4 - Placement,
9
§ 89475.2 - Postural Supports and Protective Devices, pp. 141-143;
10
WW.
FFA Service Log dated 9/12/11 [COS 3061-63];
11
XX.
FFA Service Log dated 10/12/11 [COS 3432-35];
12
YY.
FFA Service Log dated 11/10/11 [COS 3588-91];
13
ZZ.
FFA Service Log dated 12/11/11 [COS 3681-85];
14
AAA. FFA Service Log dated 1/11/12 [COS 3987-90];
15
BBB. FFA Service Log dated 2/12/12 [COS 4233-36];
16
CCC. FFA Service Log dated 3/12/12 [COS 4238-41];
17
DDD. FFA Service Log dated 4/12/12 [COS 4306-09];
18
EEE. FFA Service Log dated 5/11/12 [COS 4358-61];
19
FFF. FFA Service Log dated 6/11/12 [COS 4396-99];
20
GGG. FFA Service Log dated 7/12/12 [COS 4442-45];
21
HHH. FFA Service Log dated 9/11/12 [COS 4490-93]; and
22
III. FFA Service Log dated 10/11/12 [COS 4525-28]
23
Each party may use an exhibit designated by the other.
24
A.
25
unless:
26
No other exhibits will be permitted to be introduced
(1)
The party proffering the exhibit demonstrates that
27
the exhibit is for the purpose of rebutting evidence which could
28
not be reasonably anticipated at the Pretrial Conference, or
16
1
(2)
The exhibit was discovered after the Pretrial
2
Conference and the proffering party makes the showing required in
3
paragraph "B," below.
4
B.
Upon the post-Pretrial discovery of exhibits, the
5
attorneys shall promptly inform the court and opposing counsel of
6
the existence of such exhibits so that the court may consider at
7
trial their admissibility.
8
unless the proffering party demonstrates:
9
10
(1)
The exhibits could not reasonably have been
discovered prior to Pretrial;
11
12
The exhibits will not be received
(2)
The court and counsel were promptly informed of
their existence;
13
(3)
Counsel forwarded a copy of the exhibit(s) (if
14
physically possible) to opposing counsel.
15
not be copied, the proffering counsel must show that he has made
16
the exhibit(s) reasonably available for inspection by opposing
17
counsel.
18
If the exhibit(s) may
As to each exhibit, each party is ordered to exchange copies
19
of the exhibit not later than fourteen (14) days before trial.
20
Each party is then granted five (5) days to file and serve
21
objections to any of the exhibits.
22
party is to set forth the grounds for the objection.
23
shall pre-mark their respective exhibits in accord with the Court’s
24
Pretrial Order.
Exhibit stickers may be obtained through the
25
Clerk’s Office.
An original and one (1) copy of the exhibits shall
26
be presented to Harry Vine, Deputy Courtroom Clerk, at 8:30 a.m. on
27
the date set for trial or at such earlier time as may be agreed
28
upon.
In making the objection, the
The parties
Mr. Vine can be contacted at (916) 930-4091 or via e-mail
17
1
at: hvine@caed.uscourts.gov.
2
objected to, it shall be marked and may be received into evidence
3
on motion and will require no further foundation.
4
which is objected to will be marked for identification only.
5
6
As to each exhibit which is not
Each exhibit
XII. DISCOVERY DOCUMENTS
None.
7
XIII. FURTHER DISCOVERY OR MOTIONS
8
Pursuant to the court's Status Conference Order, all discovery
9
and law and motion was to have been conducted so as to be completed
10
as of the date of the Pretrial Conference.
11
confirmed.
12
pursuant to informal agreement.
13
not be enforceable in this court.
The parties are free to do anything they desire
14
15
None.
XV. AMENDMENTS/DISMISSALS
None.
18
19
However, any such agreement will
XIV. STIPULATIONS
16
17
That order is
XVI. FURTHER TRIAL PREPARATION
A.
Counsel are directed to Local Rule 285 regarding the
20
contents of trial briefs.
21
before May 14, 2018.
22
B.
Such briefs should be E-filed on or
Counsel are further directed to confer and to attempt to
23
agree upon a joint set of jury instructions.
24
instructions shall be lodged via ECF with the court clerk on or
25
before May 14, 2018, and shall be identified as the "Jury
26
Instructions Without Objection."
27
there is dispute the parties shall submit the instruction(s) via
28
ECF as its package of proposed jury instructions on or before May
18
The joint set of
As to instructions as to which
1
18, 2018.
2
the “Jury Instructions Without Objection” and should be clearly
3
identified as “Disputed Jury Instructions” on the proposed
4
instructions.
5
This package of proposed instructions should not include
The parties shall e-mail a set of all proposed jury
6
instructions in word format to the Court’s Judicial Assistant, Jane
7
Klingelhoets, at: jklingelhoets@caed.uscourts.gov.
8
9
C.
It is the duty of counsel to ensure that a hard copy of
any deposition which is to be used at trial has been lodged with
10
the Clerk of the Court pursuant to Local Rule 133(j).
11
depositions shall be lodged with the court clerk seven (7) calendar
12
days prior to the date of the trial.
13
failure to discharge this duty may result in the court precluding
14
use of the deposition or imposition of such other sanctions as the
15
court deems appropriate.
16
D.
The
Counsel are cautioned that a
The parties are ordered to E-file with the court and
17
exchange between themselves not later than one (1) week before the
18
trial a statement designating portions of depositions intended to
19
be offered or read into evidence (except for portions to be used
20
only for impeachment or rebuttal).
21
E.
The parties are ordered to E-file with the court and
22
exchange between themselves not later than one (1) week before
23
trial the portions of Answers to Interrogatories and/or Requests
24
for Admission which the respective parties intend to offer or read
25
into evidence at the trial (except portions to be used only for
26
impeachment or rebuttal).
27
28
F.
Each party may submit proposed voir dire questions the
party would like the court to put to prospective jurors during jury
19
1
selection.
2
week prior to trial.
3
G.
Proposed voir dire should be submitted via ECF one (1)
Each party may submit a proposed verdict form that the
4
party would like the Court to use in this case.
5
forms should be submitted via ECF one (1) week prior to trial.
6
H.
Proposed verdict
In limine motions shall be E-filed separately on or
7
before May 11, 2018.
Opposition briefs shall be E-filed on or
8
before May 16, 2018.
No reply briefs may be filed.
9
XVII. SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS
10
A formal Settlement Conference before Magistrate Judge Allison
11
Claire is set for May 3, 2018 at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 26.
12
party is reminded of the requirement that it be represented in
13
person at the settlement conference by a person with full
14
settlement authority.
15
prior to the conference, the parties are directed to submit
16
confidential settlement conference statements to chambers via email
17
(acorders@caed.uscourts.gov).
18
with the Clerk: however, each party shall e-file a one page
19
document entitled Notice of Submission of Confidential Settlement
20
Conference Statement.
21
other.
22
At least seven (7) days
Such statements shall not be filed
The parties may agree, or not, to serve each
XVIII. AGREED STATEMENTS
23
See paragraph III, supra.
24
XIX. SEPARATE TRIAL OF ISSUES
25
None.
26
XX. IMPARTIAL EXPERTS/LIMITATION OF EXPERTS
27
28
See Local Rule 270.
Each
None.
///
20
1
2
XXI. ATTORNEYS' FEES
The matter of the award of attorneys' fees to prevailing
3
parties pursuant to statute will be handled by motion in accordance
4
with Local Rule 293.
5
6
XXII. MISCELLANEOUS
None.
7
8
9
10
XXIII. ESTIMATE OF TRIAL TIME/TRIAL DATE
The parties estimate six (6) to seven (7) court days for
trial.
Trial will commence on or about May 21, 2018, at 9:00 a.m.
Counsel are to call Harry Vine, Courtroom Deputy, at
11
(916) 930-4091, one week prior to trial to ascertain the status of
12
the trial date.
13
14
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: April 24, 2018
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
21
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?