Willis et al v. City of Oakland et al

Filing 196

ORDER EXTENDING TRIAL SCHEDULE Jury Selection set for 12/6/2011 09:00 AM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. James Ware. Jury Trial set for 12/6/2011 01:00 PM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. James Ware. Jury Trial set for 12/7/2011 01:00 PM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. James Ware. Jury Trial set for 12/8/2011 01:00 PM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. James Ware. Jury Trial set for 12/9/2011 01:00 PM in Cour troom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. James Ware. Jury Trial set for 12/13/2011 01:00 PM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. James Ware. Jury Trial set for 12/14/2011 01:00 PM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco bef ore Hon. James Ware. Jury Trial set for 12/15/2011 01:00 PM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. James Ware. Jury Trial set for 12/16/2011 01:00 PM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. James Ware. Final Pretrial Conference set for 11/21/2011 11:00 AM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco.. Signed by Judge James Ware on 9/30/11. (sis, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/30/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
NO. C 04-02305 JW

Lillie Willis, et al.,

11

ORDER EXTENDING TRIAL SCHEDULE

Plaintiffs,
v.

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
City of Oakland, et al.,
13
Defendants.
14
15

/
On September 8, 2011, the Court issued a Preliminary Pretrial Conference Scheduling Order

16

in this case. (hereafter, “September 8 Order,” Docket Item No. 191.) On September 9, 2011, the

17

parties filed a letter requesting that the Court “reconsider his [sic] plan.” (See Docket Item No.

18

192.) In their letter,1 the parties contend that both sides will be unable to prepare their motions in

19

limine or proposed jury instructions by the date specified in the Court’s September 8 Order, on the

20

grounds that: (1) the parties have “yet to carry out expert discovery”; (2) counsel for both sides have

21

other cases that require their attention; and (3) the “possibility of settlement is not yet dead.”2 (Id. at

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Because the parties wrote a letter, ignoring the Court’s published policy that any request
for action by the Court must be made by way of a properly filed motion, this matter has only
recently come to the Court’s attention.
2

In the parties’ Updated Joint Preliminary Pretrial Conference Statement, their sole
contention as to scheduling was that “[t]his matter should be set for trial with a date a sufficient time
out for the parties to engage in further discussions with Magistrate [Judge] Corley.” (Docket Item
No. 190 at 5.) In the parties’ prior Joint Preliminary Pretrial Conference Statement, they contended
that “[t]his matter should be set for trial in November 2011.” (Docket Item No. 186 at 4.) On
September 22, 2011 and September 28, 2011, the parties engaged in settlement discussions with
Judge Corley, failing to settle on both occasions. (See Docket Item Nos. 194, 195.)

1

1-2.) The parties further request that the Court extend the deadlines in its September 8 Order for

2

between sixty to ninety days.3 (Id. at 2.)

3

Upon review, and in light of the parties’ contentions regarding the inability of either side to

4

comply with the Court’s September 8 Order, the Court finds good cause to CONTINUE the trial

5

schedule. However, in light of the age of the case, and the fact that the parties have allowed this

6

case to languish, the Court will only grant a brief continuance. Accordingly, the September 8 Order

7

is modified as follows:

8

(1)

The Final Pretrial Conference is CONTINUED to November 21, 2011 at 11 a.m.

9

(2)

The Joint Pretrial Conference Statement, In Limine Motions, and Proposed Jury
Instructions are due on or before October 21, 2011.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
(3)

Jury selection will take place on December 6, 2011 at 9 a.m.

12

(4)

Sessions 1-4 of the Jury Trial will be on December 6-9, 2011, 1 p.m. - 4 p.m.

13

Sessions 5-6 will be on December 13-14, 2011, 1 p.m. - 4 p.m.

14

(5)

Argue & Submit will take place on December 15, 2011 at 1 p.m.

15

(6)

Jury Deliberations will take place from December 15-16, 2011, if necessary.

16

No other aspect of the Court’s September 8 Order is changed by this Order. The Court will

17

not entertain any further requests for extension of time.

18
19
20

Dated: September 30, 2011
JAMES WARE
United States District Chief Judge

21
22
23
24
3

25
26
27
28

The Court’s September 8 Order stated that the parties were “ordered to comply” with the
trial schedule set out in that Order, which provided that a Joint Pretrial Conference Statement, In
Limine Motions, and Proposed Jury Instructions were due on September 16, 2011. (September 8
Order at 1.) In lieu of following the instructions clearly set forth in the Court’s September 8
Order–and in lieu of filing a properly noticed motion requesting relief from the deadlines imposed
by the September 8 Order–the parties wrote the letter discussed above.
2

1

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO:

2

Christopher Andrew Kee [e-mail]
Dennis Cunningham [e-mail]
James F. Hodgkins [e-mail]

3
4

Dated: September 30, 2011

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

5
6
7
8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

By:

/s/ JW Chambers
Susan Imbriani
Courtroom Deputy