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)

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