Johnson v. Patel

Filing 22

STATUS (PRETRIAL SCHEDULING) ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 5/12/15 ORDERING that the 5/18/15 status (pretrial scheduling) conference is hereby VACATED. All Discovery shall be completed by 6/22/2016. Designation of Expert Witne sses is due by 3/7/2016, and any expert rebuttal disclosure is due by 4/7/2016. The last hearing date for a motion is 8/22/2016, commencing at 9:00 a.m.. The Final Pretrial Conference is SET for 10/24/2016 at 11:00 AM in Courtroom 10 (GEB) before Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr.. Trial is SET for 1/24/2017 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 10 (GEB) before Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr.. (Kastilahn, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

Scott Johnson,

10

2:14-cv-02052-GEB-DAD

Plaintiff,

11
12

No.

v.

STATUS (PRETRIAL SCHEDULING)
ORDER

Mike Patel,
Defendant*.

13
14
15

The status (pretrial scheduling) conference scheduled

16

for hearing on May 18, 2015, is vacated since the parties’ Joint

17

Status

18

following Order should issue.

Report

filed

on

May

6,

2015

(“JSR”)

indicates

the

DISMISSAL OF DOE DEFENDANTS

19
Since

20

Plaintiff

has

not

justified

Doe

defendants

21

remaining in this action, Does 1-10 are dismissed. See Order

22

Setting Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference filed November

23

21, 2014, at 2 n.2 (indicating that if justification for “Doe”

24

defendant

25

dismissed).

allegations

not

provided

Doe

defendants

would

be

26
27
*

28

The caption has been amended
Defendants portion of this Order.

according

1

to

the

Dismissal

of

Doe

1

SERVICE, JOINDER OF ADDITIONAL PARTIES, AMENDMENT

2

Plaintiff states in the JSR:

3

Plaintiff intends to conduct an expert
led site inspection to identify each barrier
that would affect his type of disability and,
then, amend the complaint to ensure that the
ADA claim reflects his intention to have all
unlawful barrier removed or remediated. This
is
the
two-step
process
permitted
and
required by Doran v. 7-Eleven Inc., (9th Cir.
2008) 524 F.3d 103 and Chapman v. Pier 1
Imports (US) Inc., 631 F.3d 939 (9th Cir.
2011).

4
5
6
7
8
9

(JSR 2:10-16, ECF No. 21.)

10

This

statement

fails

to

comply

with

Plaintiff’s

11

obligation under Rule 16 to provide meaningful information on

12

when the referenced amendment would be sought.

13

Parties
anticipating
possible
amendments. . . have an unflagging obligation
to alert the Rule 16 scheduling judge of the
. . . timing of such anticipated amendments
in their status reports so that the judge can
consider whether such amendments may properly
be sought solely under the Rule 15(a)
standard, and whether structuring discovery
pertinent to the parties’ decision whether to
amend is feasible.

14
15
16
17
18
19

Jackson v. Laureate, Inc., 186 F.R.D. 605, 608 (E.D. Cal. 1999)

20

(internal quotation marks omitted).

21

Therefore, Plaintiff shall conduct discovery pertinent

22

to the referenced amendment forthwith, and is authorized to file

23

a motion in which leave is sought under Federal Rule of Civil

24

Procedure 15(a) to file the referenced amendment provided that

25

the motion in which leave is sought is filed no later than sixty

26

days from the date on which this order is filed; the motion shall

27

be

28

scheduled law and motion hearing date.

noticed

for

hearing

on

the

2

earliest

available

regularly

1

No further service, joinder of parties, or amendments

2

to pleadings is permitted, except with leave of Court for good

3

cause shown.

4

DISCOVERY

5

All

discovery

shall

be

completed

by

June

22,

2016

6

“Completed” means all discovery shall be conducted so that any

7

dispute

8

appropriate orders, if necessary, and, where discovery has been

9

ordered,

10

relative

the

to

order

discovery

has

been

shall

have

complied

been

with

on

or

resolved

before

by

the

prescribed “completion” date.

11

Each

party

shall

comply

with

Federal

Rule

of

Civil

12

Procedure 26(a)(2)(B) and (C)’s initial expert witness disclosure

13

requirements on or before March 7, 2016, and any contradictory

14

and/or

15

26(a)(2)(D)(ii) on or before April 7, 2016.

rebuttal

16

expert

disclosure

authorized

under

Rule

MOTION HEARING SCHEDULE

17

The last hearing date for a motion is August 22, 2016,

18

commencing at 9:00 a.m. Any motion shall be briefed as prescribed

19

in Local Rule 230.

20
21

The

parties

are

cautioned

that

an

untimely

motion

characterized as a motion in limine may be summarily denied.

22

FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE

23

The final pretrial conference is set for October 24,

24

2016, at 11:00 a.m. The parties are cautioned that the lead

25

attorney who WILL TRY THE CASE for each party shall attend the

26

final pretrial conference. In addition, all persons representing

27

themselves

and

appearing

in

propria

28
3

persona

must

attend

the

1

pretrial conference.

2

The parties shall file a JOINT pretrial statement no

3

later than seven (7) calendar days prior to the final pretrial

4

conference.

5

applicable portions of Local Rule 281(b), and shall set forth

6

each theory of liability (“claim”) and affirmative defense which

7

remains

8

theory/defense is based. Furthermore, each party shall estimate

9

the length of trial. The Court uses the parties’ joint pretrial

10

statement to prepare its final pretrial order and could issue the

11

final pretrial order without holding the scheduled final pretrial

12

conference. See Mizwicki v. Helwig, 196 F.3d 828, 833 (7th Cir.

13

1999) (“There is no requirement that the court hold a pretrial

14

conference.”).

to

The

be

joint

tried,

pretrial

and

the

statement

ultimate

shall

facts

address

on

which

the

each

15

Final pretrial procedures are “critical for ‘promoting

16

efficiency and conserving judicial resources by identifying the

17

real issues prior to trial, thereby saving time and expense for

18

everyone.’” Friedman & Friedman, Ltd. v. Tim McCandless, Inc.,

19

606 F.3d 494, 498 (8th Cir. 2010) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 16

20

Advisory

21

“Toward

22

conferences to weed out unmeritorious claims and defenses before

23

trial begins.” Smith v. Gulf Oil Co., 995 F.2d 638, 642 (6th Cir.

24

1993). The parties are therefore provided notice that a claim or

25

affirmative defense may be dismissed sua sponte if it is not

26

shown to be triable in the joint final pretrial statement. Cf.

27

Portland Retail Druggists Ass’n v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, 662

28

F.2d 641, 645 (9th Cir. 1981) (indicating that a party shall be

Committee
that

end,

Note
Rule

(1983
16

Amendment

directs

4

to

courts

subdivision
to

use

(c)).

pretrial

1

provided

2

sufficient

3

proceed

4

Protective Comm., 770 F.2d 866, 869 (9th Cir. 1985) (stating “the

5

district court has . . . authority to grant summary judgment sua

6

sponte in the context of a final pretrial conference”).

notice

to

to

and

justify
trial);

an

opportunity

having

a

Portsmouth

claim

to
or

Square,

respond

with

affirmative
Inc.

v.

facts
defense

S’holders

7

If feasible, at the time of filing the joint pretrial

8

statement counsel shall also email it in a format compatible with

9

WordPerfect to: [e-mail].

10

TRIAL SETTING

11

Trial shall commence at 9:00 a.m. on January 24, 2017.

12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13

Dated:

May 12, 2015

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