Hiramanek et al v. Clark et al

Filing 201

ORDER FOLLOWING CASEMANAGEMENT CONFERENCE. Signed by Judge Ronald M Whyte on 3/16/2015. (rmwlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/17/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ADIL K HIRAMANEK, et al.,

Case No. 5:13-cv-00228-RMW

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Plaintiffs,
12
v.

ORDER FOLLOWING CASE
MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

13
14

L MICHAEL CLARK, et al.,
Defendants.

15
16
17

Following the case management conference held on March 13, 2015, the Court received an

18

email from plaintiffs requesting further clarification on issues raised at the case management

19

conference. See Exhibit 1 to this Order. This order addresses those issues:

20

The Court set the following dates, which were agreed to by the parties:
Scheduled Event
Date

21

Parties Complete Initial Disclosures

May 15, 2015

Fact Discovery Cutoff

October 31, 2015

23

Disclosure of Experts

October 31, 2015

24

Expert Discovery Cutoff

December 15, 2015

25

Last Day to Hear Dispositive Motions

February 5, 2016 at 9:00 a.m.

Joint Pretrial Statement

February 26, 2016

22

26
27
28

5:13-cv-00228-RMW
ORDER FOLLOWING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
1

2

Last Day for Settlement Conference before Judge Grewal

March 3, 2016

Pretrial Conference

1

March 3, 2016 at 2:00 p.m.

Jury Trial

March 14, 2016 at 1:30 p.m.

3
4
5
6
7

The Court set the following discovery limits:


Depositions: 10 per side



Interrogatories: 25 per party



Requests for Admissions: 10 per party



Document Requests: no numerical limit, but all requests must be narrowly tailored

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

The Court referred the parties to Magistrate Judge Grewal for any discovery disputes. A party
requesting to amend the discovery limits may bring a noticed motion.
For purposes of discovery, only the following claims are at issue in the case:


12
California, County of Santa Clara. This claim is brought by both plaintiffs. See
13
Dkt. Nos. 163 at 1, 75 at 21, 98 at 11. Plaintiffs are seeking both damages and
14
prospective injunctive relief. Dkt. No. 98 at 11. The availability of damages may
15
16

Claim II-A: ADA and Rehabilitation Act claim against the Superior Court of

depend in part on issues of quasi-judicial immunity. Id.


17

Claim 10: Section 1983 claim against Polumbo and Plett in their individual
capacities, based on alleged violation of Adil’s Fourth Amendment rights,

18

including “unreasonable and invasive bodily search, search of his property, seizure

19

of his property, including mobile phone, deleting information/writing” and

20

“unreasonabl[e] [detention] for unreasonably long periods of time.” Dkt. No. 94-1

21
at ¶¶ 108-110, 116-119, Revised Second Amended Complaint (RSAC). This claim

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

is brought by Adil only.


Claim 17: Section 1983 claim against McChristian and Plett in their individual
capacities, based on alleged violations of Adil’s Fourth and Fifth Amendment
rights, when McChristian and Plett allegedly detained, interrogated, and confined

Adil at the Santa Clara County Superior Courthouse. RSAC at ¶¶ 183, 188, 195,
5:13-cv-00228-RMW
ORDER FOLLOWING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
2

201-203. This claim is brought by Adil only.

1
2



Claim 35: Section 1983 claim against defendant Beth Miller in her individual

3

capacity, for violation of equal protection, based on denial of access to the

4

restroom. This claim is brought by both plaintiffs and seeks damages and

5

attorney’s fees. See Dkt. No. 153.

6



Claim 44: Section 1983 claim against McChristian and Plett in their individual

7

capacities, based on alleged violations of Adil’s Fourth and Fifth Amendment

8

rights, when McChristian and Plett allegedly used excessive force against Adil

9

when arresting him. RSAC at ¶¶ 1070-1072. This claim is brought by Adil only.

10

Both parties should preserve evidence related to other claims that Judge Chen previously

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

ordered be maintained.
Plaintiff Adil Hiramanek raised numerous potential motions. The Court acknowledged

13

that plaintiffs may file noticed motions on issues they believe have merit. However, plaintiffs

14

should not bring motions that raise issues that were previously decided. For example, plaintiffs

15

sought permission to bring a motion under Rule 54(b). Plaintiffs have already filed one such

16

motion, Dkt. No. 129, which was denied, Dkt. No. 166. Plaintiff Adil raised the possibility of a

17

“Mitchum v Foster” motion, a motion to bifurcate issues, and a motion to add Burgess as a

18

defendant. Should plaintiffs file a motion to add Burgess as a defendant, the motion must set forth

19

the specific facts to be asserted against Burgess.

20

Finally, plaintiff requested that the proceedings be recorded. As noted in the case

21

management order, the proceedings were reported by the court reporter. Dkt. No. 200. Plaintiff

22

may order a transcript of the proceedings.

23
24
25
26
27
28

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 16, 2015
______________________________________
Ronald M. Whyte
United States District Judge
5:13-cv-00228-RMW
ORDER FOLLOWING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
3

Exhibit 1
Fw: 13-0228
Jackie Garcia

to: Libby Moulton

03/16/2015 09:20 AM

This message is digitally signed.

Jackie Lynn Garcia
Courtroom Clerk to Judge Ronald M. Whyte
United States District Court for the Northern District of California - San Jose
Division
280 South First Street
San Jose, CA 95113
[e-mail]
www.cand.uscourts.gov
Direct Dial: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

----- Forwarded by Jackie Garcia/CAND/09/USCOURTS on 03/16/2015 09:20 AM ----From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

H <[e-mail]>
"[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
03/15/2015 08:01 AM
13-0228

Hi Ms. Garcia,
The minute order [Docket #200] of the last Friday's [3/13/15] CMC, presumably prepared by you, is incomplete.
Along with Burgess matter, I raised the following issues:
1. Claims dismissed at district court level but which may not be addressed 4-5 years from the date of claims due to
length of case time and Plaintiff Roda's 85 year age. I suggested, and the Judge agreed, that I could file a motion
now to certify those issues/claims for appeal
2. I raised Defendants conflict of interest and sabotaging of the federal case, and proposed a "Mitchum v. Foster"
motion, which the Judge said I could file the motion for his consideration
3. I raised bifurcation of issues, which the Judge agreed upon, but stated that he will consider it on motion, or down
the road. I gave the example of there would be no need for counsel Mark Bernal to be present in a deposition or trial
on ADA issues, which are being defended, now by counsel Tara Clancy
4. I objected to the small quota/limits on depositions, interrogatories and requests for admission. The Judge stated
that these are initial limits, and if the need arises, a party may request for the limits to be relaxed
5. I asked that for the benefit of absent Plaintiff Roda, and even due to her poor language skills if the court
proceedings could be recorded, so that the proceedings could be played back at a speed and repeated for her to
understand at her 85 years of age, with hearing and language impairment. I believe the Judge was amenable to it.
6. The judge also said that the previous court orders on point, except lifting of stay on discovery, remain in place.
This included Judge Chen's prior court orders on preserving discovery on claims dismissed that may come back to
the district court after appeal.
Please incorporate the above events of the CMC in the minute order, and revised Docket #200
Thank you
Sincerely,
Adil Hiramanek
________________________________________________________________________
This email transmission contains confidential information which is legally privileged and constitutes an electronic
communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC 2510, and its disclosure
is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. CIRCULATION OF THIS EMAIL TO

ANYONE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you are not the intended recipient please contact the sender by return
electronic mail and delete all copies of this communication. If you are not the intended recipient, TAKE NOTICE
any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking or not taking of any action in reliance on the content of the
information is STRICTLY PROHIBITED
------------------------------------------------------------------------