Myrah Martinez et al v. County of Sonoma et al

Filing 59

SCHEDULING ORDER. Deadline to add parties or amend the pleadings 2/10/2016. Further Case Management Conference set for 5/4/2016 at 2:00 PM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco. Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification 1/27/2017. Opposition to Class Certification 2/27/2017. Class Certification Reply 3/10/2017. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on January 27, 2016. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/27/2016)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

MYRAH MARTINEZ, et al.,

Case No. 15-cv-01953-JST

Plaintiffs,
9
v.

SCHEDULING ORDER

10
11

COUNTY OF SONOMA, et al.,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendants.
12
13
The Court hereby sets the following case deadlines pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

14
15

Procedure 16 and Civil Local Rule 16-10:

16
Event

Deadline

17
Deadline to add parties or amend the pleadings

February 10, 2016

Further Case Management Conference

May 4, 2016

20

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification

January 27, 2017

21

Opposition to Class Certification

February 24, 2017

22

Class Certification Reply

March 10, 2017

18
19

23
24
25
26
27
28

The Court will set a further Case Management Conference in its order regarding class
certification. If the Court’s order neglects to do this, the parties must request the setting of a
further Case Management Conference within ten days of the issuance Court’s class certification
order.

1

The Court notes that no party has requested that fact discovery end, or that expert

2

disclosures take place, prior to a decision on the issue of class certification. The Court therefore

3

does not address those topics in this order.

4

The Defendants request that the Court initially limit bifurcate (or trifurcate) discovery, so

5

that discovery would proceed initially only as to the issue of “absolute and qualified immunity.”

6

ECF No. 31 at 5. Defendants also request that the Court allow the filing of a motion for summary

7

judgment on the issue of immunity, and then another on the question of liability, before the Court

8

reaches the question of class certification. Id. at 8.

9

The Court recognizes that “[w]here the defendant seeks qualified immunity, a ruling on
that issue should be made early in the proceedings so that the costs and expenses of trial are

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

avoided where the defense is dispositive.” Conner v. Heiman, 672 F.3d 1126, 1130-31 (9th Cir.

12

2012) (quoting Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 200, 121 S.Ct. 2151, 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001),

13

overruled in part on other grounds by *1131 Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 129 S.Ct. 808,

14

172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009)); Turner v. Craig, No. C 09-03652 SI, 2011 WL 2600648, at *6 (N.D.

15

Cal. June 30, 2011) aff'd, 510 F. App'x 587 (9th Cir. 2013). Accordingly, the Court will permit

16

the Defendants to file a separate motion solely on the issue of immunity, which motion shall not

17

count against the undersigned’s presumptive limit of one summary judgment motion. See

18

Standing Order for All Civil Cases Before District Judge Jon S. Tigar at 2 (“Absent good cause,

19

the Court will consider only one motion for summary judgment per party.”). That motion may be

20

filed at any time that is at least 110 days before trial. The Court will not, however, bifurcate

21

discovery.

22
23
24

Counsel may not modify these dates without leave of court. The parties shall comply with
the Court’s standing orders, which are available at cand.uscourts.gov/jstorders.
The parties must take all necessary steps to conduct discovery, compel discovery, hire

25

counsel, retain experts, and manage their calendars so that they can complete discovery in a timely

26

manner and appear at trial on the noticed and scheduled dates. All counsel must arrange their

27

calendars to accommodate these dates, or arrange to substitute or associate in counsel who can.

28
2

1

Dates set by this Court should be regarded as firm. Requests for continuance are

2

disfavored. The Court will not consider the pendency of settlement discussions as good cause to

3

grant a continuance.

4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 27, 2016

6
7
8

_______________________________________
JON S. TIGAR
United States District Judge

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3