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.)

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 https://cand.uscourts.gov/whoorders “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 https://cand.uscourts.gov/generalorders.

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 [e-mail]. 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. https://cand.uscourts.gov/whoorders “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 [e-mail]. 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

[e-mail]. 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

https://cand.uscourts.gov/whoorders “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
cand.uscourts.gov/a and on th ECF webs
adr
he
site, cand.us
scourts.gov/
/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