United States of America v. State of California et al
CIVIL NEW CASE DOCUMENTS ISSUED (Attachments: # 1 Consent Form, # 2 Order re Filing Requirements, # 3 VDRP) (Donati, J)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ,
ORDER REQUIRING SERVICE OF
PROCESS AND JOINT STATUS REPORT
14 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL. ,
This action has been assigned to District Judge John A. Mendez. Pursuant to the provisions
18 of Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 and 26, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
Plaintiff(s) shall complete service of process on all parties within ninety (90) days
20 of the date of filing of the complaint.
Concurrently with the service of process, or as soon thereafter as possible, plaintiff(s) shall
22 serve upon each of the parties named herein, and upon all parties subsequently joined, a copy of all new
23 civil case orders issued, and shall file with the Clerk a certificate reflecting such service.
In the event this action was originally filed in a state court and was thereafter removed
25 to this court, the removing party or parties shall, immediately following such removal, serve upon each
1 of the other parties named herein, and upon all parties subsequently joined, a copy of this Order, and
2 shall file with the Clerk a certificate reflecting such service.
Within sixty (60) days of service of the complaint on any party, or from the date of removal,
4 the parties shall confer as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) and shall prepare and submit to the Court
5 a joint status report that includes the Rule 26(f) discovery plan. The status report shall address the
6 following matters:
The nature of the case;
Progress in the service of process;
Possible joinder of additional parties;
Any expected or desired amendment of pleadings;
Jurisdiction and venue;
Anticipated motions and the scheduling of motions;
Anticipated discovery and the scheduling of discovery, including:
(1) what changes, if any, should be made in the timing, form,
or requirement for disclosures under Rule 26(a), including
a statement as to when disclosures under Rule 26(a)(1)
were made or will be made;
(2) the subjects on which discovery may be needed, when
discovery should be completed, and whether discovery
should be conducted in phases or be limited to or
focused upon particular issues;
(3) what changes, if any, should be made in the limitations
on discovery imposed under the Civil Rules and what
other limitations, if any, should be imposed; and
(4) the timing of the disclosure of expert witnesses and
information required by Rule 26(a)(2).
Future proceedings, including setting appropriate cut−off dates for
discovery, law and motion, and the scheduling of pretrial and trial;
Appropriateness of special procedures;
Estimate of trial time;
Modification of standard pretrial procedures specified by the rules due
to the relative simplicity or complexity of the action or proceedings;
Whether the case is related to any other case, including any
matters in bankruptcy;
Whether a settlement conference should be scheduled; and
Any other matters that may add to the just and expeditious disposition
of this matter.
The Court, upon review of the joint status report may:
Issue a scheduling order incorporating the suggestions of counsel
as contained in the joint status report; or
By minute order, set a status conference to be held either by
telephone or in chambers.
In cases involving public traded companies, the parties shall request Judge Mendez's
13 recusal list by contacting Harry Vine at (916) 930−4091 or via Email at firstname.lastname@example.org.
14 In addition, any nongovernmental corporate party to an action assigned to Judge Mendez shall file
15 with the joint status report a statement identifying all its parent corporations and listing any publicly held
16 company that owns 10% or more of the party's stock. A party shall supplement the statement within a
17 reasonable time of any change in the information.
DATE: March 6, 2018
JOHN A. MENDEZ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
by: /s/ J. Donati
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?