Johnson v. Raymus et al.

Filing 7

ORDER signed by William H. Orrick, III on 10/12/2016 Setting Initial Case Management Conference. Law and Motion hearings will generally be held for the Eastern District cases on Wednesdays at 1:30 p.m. via teleconference. A Case Management Conference will be held in this case on 1/17/2017 at 3:00 p.m. via teleconference. (Zignago, K.)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 SCOTT JOHNSON, Case No. 2:16-cv-2231 (WHO) Plaintiff, 8 v. 9 MARIE F. RAYMUS and CHARLENE MARIE PARRA, 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 ORDER FOR CASE REASSIGNED TO VISITING JUDGE ORRICK AND SETTING INITIAL CASE MANAGMENT CONFERENCE Defendants. 12 13 This case has been reassigned to the Hon. William H. Orrick of the Northern District of California, who is serving as a visiting judge in the Eastern District of California. 14 Governing Rules and Procedures 15 The Eastern District of California Local Rules will govern this case, including EDCA 16 Local Rule 271 (Voluntary Dispute Resolution Program), with the following exceptions: 17 Judge Orrick’s Standing Order 18 Counsel should review and follow Judge Orrick’s Standing Order for Civil Cases, 19 available at “Judge Orrick’s Standing Order Civil.” 20 Access Cases under the ADA 21 The Northern District of California’s General Order No. 56, governing Americans with 22 Disabilities Act Access Litigation shall apply to this case. A copy of that General Order is 23 attached and can also be found at 24 Noticed Motions and Hearings 25 Law and Motion hearings will generally be held for the Eastern District cases on 26 Wednesdays at 1:30 p.m. To reserve a hearing date, contact Judge Orrick’s Courtroom Deputy 27 Jean Davis at 415-522-7171 or Parties will be expected to appear 28 telephonically for any hearing, unless both sides agree to appear in person in San Francisco and 1 inform Courtroom Deputy Jean Davis of their intent to appear. Prior to the hearing, Judge Orrick 2 may determine that a matter is appropriate for resolution on the papers and may vacate the hearing 3 date. 4 Motions shall be noticed for hearing at least 35 days before the proposed hearing date. 5 Any opposition to the motion shall be filed no later than 14 days after the motion was filed. Any 6 reply shall be filed no later than 7 days after the opposition and in no event less than 14 days prior 7 to the noticed hearing date. 8 Discovery 9 If a discovery dispute arises, counsel shall follow Judge Orrick’s Joint Discovery Letter procedure, described in detail in his Standing Order. “Judge 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 Orrick’s Standing Order Civil.” EDCA Local Rules 251 and 302(c) do not apply to this case. 12 EDCA Local Rule 302(c) 13 EDCA Local Rule 302(c)’s designation of motions to be resolved by a Magistrate Judge 14 does not apply in this case. Matters may be referred to a Magistrate Judge by Judge Orrick on a 15 case-by-case basis. 16 Proposed Orders and Requests to Seal 17 All proposed orders and requests to seal required under the EDCA Local Rules shall be 18 emailed to For requests to seal, the request to seal, the proposed 19 order, and all documents covered by the request shall be emailed in electronic form to 20 Do not file requests to seal or documents covered by requests to 21 seal in paper at the EDCA or NDCA courthouses. 22 Initial Case Management Conference 23 A Case Management Conference will be held in this case on January 17, 2017 at 3:00 24 p.m. Parties will be expected to appear telephonically, unless both sides agree to appear in person 25 in Judge Orrick’s courtroom in San Francisco and notify Courtroom Deputy Jean Davis of their 26 intent to appear. The parties’ Case Management Conference Statement shall follow the form of 27 and address the issues specified in the Standing Order for All Judges of the Northern District of 28 California (for Case Management). A copy of that Standing Order can be found at 2 1 “Standing Order for All Judges of the Northern District of 2 California.” 3 4 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: October 13, 2016 ______________________________________ WILLIAM H. ORRICK United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 GENERAL ORDER No. 56 AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT ACCESS LITIGATION In any action which asserts denial of a right of access protected by Titles II or III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 USC §§ 12131-89, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16, the Court ORDERS that the following shall apply: 1. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), plaintiff shall forthwith complete service on all necessary defendants. A plaintiff who is unable to complete service on all necessary defendants within 63 days may, prior to the expiration of that period, file a Motion For Administrative Relief pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-11 requesting an extension of the schedule required by this Order. 2. Initial disclosures required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a) shall be completed no later than 7 days prior to the joint inspection and review required by ¶3. For example, in a Title III action, if defendant intends to dispute liability based on the construction or alteration history of the subject premises, defendant shall disclose all information in defendant’s possession or control regarding the construction or alteration history of the subject premises. In a Title II action, if defendant intends to dispute liability based on overall programmatic compliance, a transition plan, or a self-evaluation plan, defendant shall disclose all information in defendant's possession or control regarding such programmatic compliance, transition plan, or self-evaluation plan. If plaintiff claims damages under California law, plaintiff shall include in the initial disclosures the damages computation required by Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(iii), but need not include attorney’s fees and costs. All other discovery and proceedings are STAYED unless the assigned judge orders otherwise. Notwithstanding any other provision of this General Order, any dispute concerning the adequacy of the Rule 26(a) disclosures may be submitted to the court under Civil Local Rule 7. 3. No later than 105 days after filing the complaint, the parties and their counsel, accompanied by their experts if the parties so elect, shall meet in person at the subject premises. If plaintiff alleges only programmatic or policy violations, the parties and their counsel may meet in person at any mutually agreeable location. They shall jointly inspect the portions of the subject premises, and shall review any programmatic or policy issues, which are claimed to violate the Americans with Disabilities Act. 4. At the joint inspection and review required under ¶3, or within 28 days thereafter, the parties, and their experts if the parties so elect, shall meet in person and confer regarding settlement of the action. The meet and confer obligation cannot be satisfied by telephone or by exchanging letters. At the conference, the parties shall discuss all claimed access violations. Plaintiff shall specify all claimed access violations and the corrective actions requested of defendant. With respect to each claimed violation, defendant shall specify whether defendant is willing to undertake the requested corrective actions or has an alternate proposal. If defendant claims any proposed corrective action is not readily achievable under Title III or otherwise required by law, defendant shall specify the factual basis for this claim. 5. This General Order does not require any party to engage an expert. In simpler cases it may be possible for parties to reach agreement regarding corrective actions without engaging experts, or without th preparati of writte expert rep o he ion en ports. If writ tten expert re eports are prepared they shall be exchange In a case which the p d, ed. parties conclude would b benefit from m expert as ssistance, the Court enco e ourages the parties to joi p intly engage an expert. e 6. If the parties reach a tenta f ative agreem ment on injun nctive relief plaintiff sh forthwith f, hall h provide defendant with a statem d w ment of costs and attorne fees incu ey's urred to date and make a e, demand for settleme of the cas in its entir ent se rety (includi any addi ing itional dama ages not included in the Rule 26(a) disclosures). Plain d ntiff should n require e not execution of a formal f agreemen regarding injunctive relief as a pr nt g r recondition t providing defendant with the to g statemen of costs an attorney’s fees, and ad nt nd s dditional da amages. If re equested by defendant, plaintiff should prov s vide docume entation and support for its attorney fees simil to what a d r y’s lar an attorney would prov vide in a billi statemen to a client ing nt t. 7. If within 42 days from the joint site in f d nspection an review, th parties ca nd he annot reach a an agreemen on injunctive relief, or cannot sett the dama nt tle ages and fees claims, pla aintiff shall f a file "Notice of Need for Mediation” in the form set forth on t Court's A o M i s ADR Interne site, et the and on th ECF webs adr he site, /ecf. The ma atter will the be en ically referre to mediat ed tion and the ADR Progra will arra am ange for a me ediation sess sion automati to be scheduled as so as feasib and in no event later that 90 day from the d oon ble, o r ys date the Not tice of Need for Mediatio is filed, un f on nless otherw ordered by the assig wise d gned judge. The mediato or shall hav the author to presid over settlement negot ve rity de tiations that address all issues prese t ented by this matter, includ m ding request for injunct ts tive relief, d amages and attorney’s f d fees. Should a settlemen be reached, the media nt ator shall ensure that the parties ma a written or audio re e ake n ecord of the ess sential terms of the settle s ement suffic cient to perm any party to move to enforce the mit y o e settlemen should it not be consu nt n ummated according to it terms. Sho ts ould any set ttlement be condition upon future conduc such as rem ned ct mediation, th assigned judge will r he retain jurisdicti to enforc that comp ion ce ponent of the settlement. e . 8. If the case does not resolv at mediat f ve tion within 7 days of the mediator's filing of a e Certificat tion of ADR Session rep R porting that the mediatio process is concluded, plaintiff sha t on s , all file a Motion for Adm ministrative Relief pursu uant to Civil Local Rule 7-11 request l ting a Case Managem ment Confer rence. 9. Any party wh wishes to be relieved of any requ A ho o d uirement of t this order or to adjust th r he schedule set forth he e erein may file a Motion for Administ f trative Relie pursuant t Civil Loca ef to al Rule 7-11 1. ADOPTE ED: AMEND DED: AMEND DED: AMEND DED: June 21, 2005 2 Febru uary 17, 2009 Novem mber 5, 2009 9 May 29, 2012 2 FOR THE COUR R RT: DATE: April 17, 2013 nunc pro tun May 29, 20 A 3 nc 012 CLAU UDIA WILK KEN CHIE JUDGE EF 2

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?