Kidgell v. County of Santa Clara et al

Filing 40

ORDER VACATING PRELIMINARY PRETRIAL CONFERENCE; MODIFYING SCHEDULING ORDER re 35 Stipulation, 38 Pretrial Conference Statement, 34 Case Management Statement. The Pretrial Conference set for 7/6/2009 is VACATED. The parties are ordered to comply with the following modified schedule: Close of All Discovery due by 9/14/2009. Last Date to Hear Dispositive Motions due by 11/16/2009. Please see Order for further specifics. Signed by Judge James Ware on 7/1/2009. (ecg, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/1/2009)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Gary H. Kidgell, v. Plaintiff, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION NO. C 08-03396 JW ORDER VACATING PRELIMINARY PRETRIAL CONFERENCE; MODIFYING SCHEDULING ORDER

United United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

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

County of Santa Clara, et al., Defendants. /

This case was scheduled for a Preliminary Pretrial Conference on July 6, 2009. The parties submitted separate case management statements. Based on their submissions, it appears that this case is not yet ready for a Preliminary Pretrial Conference. In light of Plaintiff's new status as a pro se litigant, the Court finds good cause to extend the current Case Schedule. Accordingly, the Preliminary Pretrial Conference is VACATED, and the parties are ordered to comply with the following modified schedule: CASE SCHEDULE Close of All Discovery (¶ 9) Last Date for Hearing Dispositive Motions (¶ 10) (.60 days after the Close of All Discovery) Preliminary Pretrial Conference (¶ 12) September 14, 2009 November 16, 2009 The Court will set this date in its Order addressing anticipated dispositive motions.

None of the dates set in this Order may be changed without an order of the Court made after a motion is filed pursuant to the Civil Local Rules of Court.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1.

Standing Order to Lodge Printed Copy of "ECF" Papers In all cases, including cases covered by the Electronic Case Filing System of

the Court "ECF," when filing papers in connection with any motion or any pretrial conference, in addition to filing the paper electronically, the filing parties shall lodge with the Clerk's Office a printed copy of the papers, in an envelop clearly marked "Chamber's Copy ­ Lodged for the 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 are filed electronically. See Standing Order Regarding Case Management in Civil Cases. Compliance with Discovery Plan and Reference to Magistrate Judge 2. The Court adopts the Discovery Plan proposed by the parties in their Joint

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

Case Management Statement. The parties are ordered to comply with the discovery plan. Any disputes with respect to the implementation of the discovery plan and all disclosure or discovery disputes are referred to the assigned Magistrate Judge. In addition, any disputes pertaining to service or joinder of parties or claims are referred to the assigned Magistrate Judge. Document Management During Pretrial Discovery and Electronic Evidence Presentation 3. This Court has available a digital and video electronic evidence presentation

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

system. Before commencement of pretrial discovery, the parties are ordered to familiarize themselves with the system, and to meet and confer about whether the case will involve voluminous documentary. If so, as the parties identify documentary material which is likely to be used as trial exhibits, the parties are ordered to electronically store these materials in a fashion which will facilitate displaying them electronically during the trial. The parties are reminded that Civil L.R. 302(b) requires sequential numbering of exhibits during depositions and that numbering must be maintained for those exhibits throughout the litigation. Each proposed exhibit shall be pre-marked for identification. All exhibits shall be marked with numerals. The parties shall meet and confer on a division which will avoid duplication (e.g., Plaintiff: 1-99,000; Defendant #1: 100,000-299,999; Defendant #2: 300,000-500,000).

2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 4.

Disclosure of Expert Witnesses Any party wishing to present expert witness testimony with respect to a

claim or a defense shall lodge with the Court and serve on all other parties the name, address, qualifications, résumé and a written report which complies with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B) 63 days before close of discovery. Expert witness disclosure must be made with respect to a person who is either (a) specially retained or specially employed to provide expert testimony pursuant to Fed.R.Evid. 702 or (b) a regular employee or agent or treating physician who may be called to 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

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

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

must file, serve and notice a motion to exclude the expert or any portion of the expert's testimony in writing in accordance with Civil Local Rule 7-2, for hearing no later than 42 DAYS AFTER BOTH EXPERT AND REBUTTAL EXPERT DISCLOSURES ON A MONDAY (LAW AND MOTION DAY) at 9:00 a.m. and preferably before or on the same day as the discovery cutoff date at 9:00 a.m. Rebuttal Expert Witnesses 7. If the testimony of the expert is intended solely to contradict or rebut opinion

testimony on the same subject matter identified by another party, the party proffering a rebuttal expert shall make the disclosures required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B), no later than 49 days prior to discovery cutoff. Limitation on Testimony by Expert Witnesses 8. Unless the parties enter into a written stipulation otherwise, upon timely

objection, an expert witness shall be precluded from testifying about any actions or opinions not disclosed prior to the expert's deposition. This is to ensure that all factual material upon which expert opinion may be based and all tests and reports are completed prior to the expert deposition.

3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Unless application is made prior to the close of expert discovery, each party will be limited to calling only one expert witness in each discipline involved in the case. Close of Discovery 9. Pursuant to Civil L.R. 26-2, all discovery, including supplemental

disclosure, depositions of fact witness and expert witnesses, must be completed on or before the deadline set forth in the Case Schedule above. 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

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

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

and to file and lodge with Chambers on or before the deadline set forth in the Case Schedule above a Preliminary Pretrial and Trial Setting Conference Statement and Proposed Order, stating their readiness for trial, the amount of time which the Court should allocate for trial and the calendar period for the trial. 12. 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

Trial Setting Conference trial counsel will be asked to stipulate to a time allocation to each side for the trial of the case. Once a stipulated allocation has been entered, the parties must plan their presentations to conform to the stipulated time allocation.

Dated: July 1, 2009

JAMES WARE United States District Judge

4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO: David Michael Rollo [e-mail] Neysa A. Fligor [e-mail] Rima Harbans Singh [e-mail] Gary Howard Kidgell 228 Spruce Street Wichita, KS 67214

Dated: July 1, 2009

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk By: /s/ JW Chambers Elizabeth Garcia Courtroom Deputy

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

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