Shasta Strategic Investment Fund LLC et al v. United States of America

Filing 127

ORDER VACATING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE; SETTING SCHEDULE Discovery due by 1/13/2012. Last day for hearing dispositive motions by 3/12/2012. Preliminary Pretrial Conference Statement due by 12/2/2011. Preliminary Pretrial Conference set for 12/12/2011 11:00 AM in Courtroom 15, 18th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. James Ware. Signed by Judge James Ware on 7/5/11. (sis, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/6/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
Shasta Strategic Investment Fund LLC, et al.,
/

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

Princeton Strategic Investment Fund LLC,
/

13
Belford Strategic Investment Fund LLC,
14
15

/
Sanford Strategic Investment Fund LLC,
/

16
Olympus Strategic Investment Fund LLC, et al.,
17
/
18
Sill Strategic Investment Fund LLC, et al.,
19
20

/
Sixty-Three Strategic Investment Funds, et al.,

21

/

22

Twenty-Two Strategic Investment Funds, et al.,

23

/

24

Twenty-Two Strategic Investment Funds, et al.,
Petitioners,

25
v.
26

United States of America,
27
Respondent.
28

/

NO. C 04-04264 JW
NO. C 04-04310 JW
NO. C 04-04309 JW
NO. C 04-04398 JW
NO. C 04-04399 JW
NO. C 04-04964 JW
NO. C 05-01123 JW
NO. C 05-02835 JW
NO. C 05-03887 JW
ORDER VACATING CASE
MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE;
SETTING SCHEDULE

1

These nine related cases are scheduled for a Case Management Conference on July 11, 2011.

2

On July 1, 2011, the parties filed a Joint Case Management Statement in the Lead Case, No. C 04-

3

04264 JW.1 In the Statement, the government contends that it is preparing to file a Motion for

4

Summary Judgment in one of the Related Cases2 based upon the doctrine of collateral estoppel and

5

issue preclusion. (Id. at 4.) Further, the government contends that the Court should “stay further

6

discovery” in these cases until after it has ruled on the government’s planned Motion for Summary

7

Judgment, on the ground that the planned Motion “is likely to resolve a number of important issues

8

in these cases.”3 (Id. at 6, 9.) Petitioners oppose the request to stay discovery, contending instead

9

that the cases “should be set on a normal discovery schedule” and that the government “may choose
to file summary judgment or other motions when it believes they are ripe.” (Id. at 9.)

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Because the case has been stayed for a number of years, the Court finds good cause to

12

advance the case by providing the parties with a schedule. There is no reason that the government

13

cannot file its Motion for Summary Judgment in tandem with the case proceeding in its natural

14

course. In addition, summary judgment in one related case may not affect all nine cases.

15

Accordingly, the Court VACATES the July 11 Conference and ORDERS as follows:

16

CASE SCHEDULE

17

Close of All Discovery (¶ 9)

January 13, 2012

18

Last Date for Hearing Dispositive Motions (¶ 10)
(.60 days after the Close of All Discovery)

March 12, 2012

Preliminary Pretrial Conference at 11 a.m. (¶ 12)
(.30 days before the Close of All Discovery)

December 12, 2011

20
21

Preliminary Pretrial Conference Statements (¶ 11)
(Due 10 days before conference)

December 2, 2011

19

22
23
24

1

(Joint Case Management Statement in Response to June 9, 2011 Order Setting Case
Management Conference, hereafter, “Statement,” Docket Item No. 126 in No. C 04-04264 JW.)
2

25
26
27
28

Princeton Strategic Investment Funds, LLC v. United States of America, No. C 04-04310

JW.
3

The government contends that it will file its planned motion for summary judgment “in
time to notice a hearing on the motion under local rules for October 3, 2011, the earliest available
hearing date on the Court’s calendar.” (Id. at 9.)
2

1
None of the dates set in this Order may be changed without an order of the Court made after

2
3

a motion is filed pursuant to the Civil Local Rules of Court.
Standing Order to Lodge Printed Copy of "ECF" Papers

4
5

1.

In all cases, including cases covered by the Electronic Case Filing System of

6

the Court "ECF," when filing papers in connection with any motion or any pretrial conference, in

7

addition to filing the paper electronically, the filing parties shall lodge with the Clerk's Office a

8

printed copy of the papers, in an envelop clearly marked "Chamber's Copy – Lodged for the

9

Chambers of Judge James Ware." The "Chamber's Copy" envelop must state the case name and case
number and be delivered on or before the close of the next court day following the day the papers

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

are filed electronically. See Standing Order Regarding Case Management in Civil Cases.

12

Compliance with Discovery Plan and Reference to Magistrate Judge

13

2.

The parties are ordered to comply with the discovery plan as set forth in the

14

Case Schedule. Any disputes with respect to the implementation of the discovery plan and all

15

disclosure or discovery disputes are referred to the assigned Magistrate Judge. In addition, any

16

disputes pertaining to service or joinder of parties or claims are referred to the assigned Magistrate

17

Judge.

18
19

Document Management During Pretrial Discovery and Electronic Evidence Presentation
3.

This Court has available a digital and video electronic evidence presentation

20

system. Before commencement of pretrial discovery, the parties are ordered to familiarize

21

themselves with the system, and to meet and confer about whether the case will involve voluminous

22

documentary. If so, as the parties identify documentary material which is likely to be used as trial

23

exhibits, the parties are ordered to electronically store these materials in a fashion which will

24

facilitate displaying them electronically during the trial. The parties are reminded that Civil L.R. 30-

25

2(b) requires sequential numbering of exhibits during depositions and that numbering must be

26

maintained for those exhibits throughout the litigation. Each proposed exhibit shall be pre-marked

27

for identification. All exhibits shall be marked with numerals. The parties shall meet and confer on

28

3

1

a division which will avoid duplication (e.g., Plaintiff: 1-99,000; Defendant #1: 100,000-299,999;

2

Defendant #2: 300,000-500,000).

3
4

Disclosure of Expert Witnesses
4.

Any party wishing to present expert witness testimony with respect to a

5

claim or a defense shall lodge with the Court and serve on all other parties the name, address,

6

qualifications, résumé and a written report which complies with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B) 63 days

7

before close of discovery. Expert witness disclosure must be made with respect to a person who is

8

either (a) specially retained or specially employed to provide expert testimony pursuant to

9

Fed.R.Evid. 702 or (b) a regular employee or agent or treating physician who may be called to

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13

provide expert opinion testimony.
5.

The parties are also required to lodge any supplemental reports to which any

expert will testify at trial in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B).
6.

Any party objecting to the qualifications or proposed testimony of an expert

14

must file, serve and notice a motion to exclude the expert or any portion of the expert's testimony in

15

writing in accordance with Civil Local Rule 7-2, for hearing no later than 42 DAYS AFTER BOTH

16

EXPERT AND REBUTTAL EXPERT DISCLOSURES ON A MONDAY (LAW AND

17

MOTION DAY) at 9:00 a.m. and preferably before or on the same day as the discovery cutoff

18

date at 9:00 a.m.

19
20

Rebuttal Expert Witnesses
7.

If the testimony of the expert is intended solely to contradict or rebut opinion

21

testimony on the same subject matter identified by another party, the party proffering a rebuttal

22

expert shall make the disclosures required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B), no later than 49 days

23

prior to discovery cutoff.
Limitation on Testimony by Expert Witnesses

24
25

8.

Unless the parties enter into a written stipulation otherwise, upon timely

26

objection, an expert witness shall be precluded from testifying about any actions or opinions not

27

disclosed prior to the expert’s deposition. This is to ensure that all factual material upon which

28

4

1

expert opinion may be based and all tests and reports are completed prior to the expert deposition.

2

Unless application is made prior to the close of expert discovery, each party will be limited to

3

calling only one expert witness in each discipline involved in the case.

4
5

Close of Discovery
9.

Pursuant to Civil L.R. 26-2, all discovery, including supplemental

6

disclosure, depositions of fact witness and expert witnesses, must be completed on or before the

7

deadline set forth in the Case Schedule above.

8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

Last date for Hearing Dispositive Motions
10.

The last day for hearing dispositive motions is set forth in the Case Schedule

above. Any motions must be noticed in accordance with the Civil Local Rules of this Court.
Preliminary Pretrial and Trial Setting Conference Statement and Proposed Order
11.

The attorneys who will try the case are ordered to confer with one another

13

and to file and lodge with Chambers on or before the deadline set forth in the Case Schedule above a

14

Preliminary Pretrial and Trial Setting Conference Statement and Proposed Order, stating their

15

readiness for trial, the amount of time which the Court should allocate for trial and the calendar

16

period for the trial.

17

12.

18
19

The attorneys who will try the case are ordered to appear on the date set in

the Case Schedule at 11:00 a.m. for a Preliminary Pretrial and Trial Setting Conference.
13.

With respect to the time allocation for trial, at the Preliminary Pretrial and

20

Trial Setting Conference trial counsel will be asked to stipulate to a time allocation to each side for

21

the trial of the case. Once a stipulated allocation has been entered, the parties must plan their

22

presentations to conform to the stipulated time allocation.

23
24
25

Dated: July 5, 2011
JAMES WARE
United States District Chief Judge

26
27
28

5

1

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

2

Adair Ford Boroughs [e-mail]
David A. York [e-mail]
Margaret Tough [e-mail]
Martin Aaron Schainbaum [e-mail]
Steven Mark Bauer [e-mail]
Stuart David Gibson [e-mail]
Thomas Moore [e-mail]
John Mark Colvin [e-mail]
William Edward Taggart [e-mail]
Joseph Michael Depew [e-mail]
N. Jerold Cohen [e-mail]

3
4
5
6
7
8

Dated: July 5, 2011

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

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