E.G. v. Elk Grove Unified School District

Filing 20

PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 5/23/17: The parties shall file their Motion for Summary Judgment no later than August 10, 2017 and the hearing for the motions shall be noticed for September 7, 2017 at 2:00 p.m. (Kaminski, H)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 E.G., a minor, by and through his parent IDA GARRETT, No. 2:16-cv-02412-TLN-KJN 12 Plaintiff, 13 PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER v. 14 15 ELK GROVE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, a public entity, 16 Defendant. 17 After reviewing the parties’ Joint Status Report filed May 18 19 19, 2017, the Court makes the following Pretrial Scheduling 20 Order. 21 I. SERVICE OF PROCESS 22 All named Defendants have been served and no further service 23 is permitted without leave of court, good cause having been 24 shown. 25 II. ADDITIONAL PARTIES/AMENDMENTS/PLEADINGS 26 No joinder of parties or amendments to pleadings is 27 permitted without leave of court, good cause having been shown. 28 /// 1 1 2 3 III. JURISDICTION/VENUE Jurisdiction is predicated upon 28 U.S.C. section 1331. Jurisdiction and venue are not contested. 4 IV. 5 In agreeing that no need for additional discovery is DISCOVERY 6 indicated at this time, the parties appear to concede that 7 judicial review of agency decisions is limited to the 8 administrative record, unless a need to expand that record is 9 demonstrated by the parties. See Southwest Center for Biological 10 Diversity v. U.S., 100 F.3d 1443, 1450 (9th Cir. 1996); see also 11 5 U.S.C. § 706. 12 to the administrative record unless good cause is found for 13 augmentation of that record. 14 and certify and lodge an electronic copy of the complete 15 Administrative Record on CD or DVD with the Court by 16 July 12, 2017. 17 the adequacy of the Administrative Record by July 26, 2017. Consequently, the Court’s review will be limited Defendants will serve on Plaintiffs Plaintiffs shall file any motions objecting to 18 V. 19 The parties have agreed that cross-motions for summary MOTION HEARING SCHEDULE 20 judgment are appropriate for purposes of resolving this 21 litigation. 22 governed by the following parameters: 23 24 25 26 27 28 1. As proposed by the parties, these motions will be The parties shall file their Motion for Summary Judgment no later than August 10, 2017. 2. The parties shall file their Oppositions no later than August 24, 2017. 3. The parties shall file their Replies no later than August 31, 2017. 2 1 2 4. The hearing for the motions shall be noticed for September 7, 2017 at 2:00 p.m. 3 5. A brief statement of facts will be included in the 4 parties’ briefs with cites to the pertinent sections of the 5 administrative record. No separate statement of facts is 6 required. 7 All purely legal issues are to be resolved by timely 8 pretrial motions. 9 260, as modified by this Order, may be deemed consent to the Failure to comply with Local Rules 230 and 10 motion and the Court may dispose of the motion summarily. 11 Further, failure to timely oppose a summary judgment motion1 may 12 result in the granting of that motion if the movant shifts the 13 burden to the nonmovant to demonstrate that a genuine issue of 14 material fact remains for trial. 15 For the Court’s convenience, citations to Supreme Court 16 cases should include parallel citations to the Supreme Court 17 Reporter. 18 VI. 19 20 TRIAL Due to the nature of the case, no trial date is currently set. A trial date shall be set at a later date if necessary. 21 VII. 22 The parties are reminded that pursuant to Rule 16(b) of the MODIFICATION OF PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER 23 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Pretrial Scheduling Order 24 shall not be modified except by leave of court upon a showing of 25 good cause. 26 alone to modify the Pretrial Scheduling Order does not constitute 27 1 28 Agreement by the parties pursuant to stipulation The Court urges any party that contemplates bringing a motion for summary judgment or who must oppose a motion for summary judgment to review Local Rule 260. 3 1 good cause. 2 unavailability of witnesses or counsel will not constitute good 3 cause. Except in extraordinary circumstances, 4 VIII. OBJECTIONS TO PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER 5 This Pretrial Scheduling Order will become final without 6 further order of the Court unless objections are filed within 7 fourteen (14) days of service of this Order. 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: May 23, 2017 10 Troy L. Nunley United States District Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4

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?