Maddox et al v. City of Sandpoint et al

Filing 39

CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER (Standard Track) - Proposed Agreement on phased discovery timeline due by 9/27/2016. ADR Plan to be filed by 12/7/2016. Amended Pleadings and Joinder of Partiesdue by 11/7/2016. Discovery due by 4/28/2017. Dispositive Motions d ue by 5/29/2017. The parties have filed a stipulated Discovery Plan (Dkt. 36 ) that the Court incorporates by reference herein and APPROVES as an Order of the Court. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (cjs)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

DANA MADDOX on behalf of D. M. and D.
M., and RAYMOND FOSTER on behalf of
H. F., minor children and heirs of
JEANETTA RILEY, deceased, and SHANE
RILEY, an heir of JEANETTA RILEY,
deceased,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CITY OF SANDPOINT, a political
subdivision of the State of Idaho, CITY OF
SANDPOINT POLICE DEPARTMENT, a
department of the City of Sandpoint,
SKYLAR CARL ZIEGLER, in his
individual and official capacity, MICHAEL
HENRY VALENZUELA, in his individual
and official capacity, COREY COON, in his
individual and official capacity, JOHN or
JANE DOE #1-10 Employees of the
Sandpoint Police Department,
Defendants.

SHANE RILEY, an individual, and as
Personal Representative, heir and husband to
the deceased JEANETTA RILEY, and on
behalf of their unborn child,
Plaintiff,
v.
THE CITY OF SANDPOINT, a political

Case No. 2:16-cv-00162-BLW
CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER
TRACK: (Standard)

subdivision of the State of Idaho, CITY OF
SANDPOINT POLICE DEPARTMENT, a
department of the City of Sandpoint,
MICHAEL VALENZUELA, in his
individual and official capacity, SKYLAR C.
ZIEGLER, in his individual and official
capacity, GARRET L. JOHNSON, in his
individual and official capacity, COREY
COON, in his individual and official
capacity, JOHN or JANE DOES #1-10,
Employees of the Sandpoint Police
Department, and ROSEMARY
BRINKMEIER and BONNER COUNTY
GENERAL HOSPITAL,
Defendants.

In accordance with the agreements reached in the telephone scheduling conference
held between counsel and the Court on September 7, 2016, and to further the efficient
administration of this matter,
NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the following recitation of
deadlines and procedures shall govern this litigation:
1.

Dispositive Motion Deadline: All dispositive motions shall be filed by May
29, 2017.1 This deadline will not be extended even if you are having
discovery disputes.

1

It is this Court's policy to accept only one (1) motion to dismiss and one summary judgment
motion per party. If it appears, due to the complexity or numerosity of issues presented, that
counsel is unable to address all issues within the twenty-page (20) limit for briefs, Dist. Idaho
Loc. R. 7.1(b)(1), then it is appropriate to file a motion for permission to file an overlength brief,
rather than filing separate motions for each issue. The Court prefers reviewing one over-length
brief in support, one over-length brief in response, and one 10-page reply brief, if any, rather than
the panoply of briefs that are generated when multiple motions are filed.

a.

This is the critical event for case management and will
dictate when the trial will be set.

b.

As provided below, a trial setting conference will be
scheduled immediately following resolution of all
dispositive motions. To facilitate a prompt trial setting,
I will make every effort to schedule oral argument
within 60 days and issue a decision within 30 days
after the oral argument. If a decision is not issued
within this time frame, I invite inquiry from counsel as
to the status of the decision.

2.

Amendment of Pleadings and Joinder of Parties: All motions to amend
pleadings and join parties, except for allegations of punitive damages, shall
be filed on or before November 7, 2016. This deadline shall only be
extended for good cause shown.2 All parties are entitled to know the claims
and parties well-before trial rather than be forced to pursue or defend
against a moving target. Although this deadline precedes the general
discovery deadline, the parties are directed to send out all discovery
requests that might relate to amendment or joinder enough in advance of
this amendment and joinder deadline to obtain the responses needed to

2

The Ninth Circuit has held that motions to amend filed after the Scheduling Order deadline are
governed, not by the liberal provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a), but instead, by the more
restrictive provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b) requiring a showing of “good cause.” Johnson v.
Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604 (9th Cir. 1992).

make an informed decision on amendment and joinder.
3.

Alternative Dispute Resolution Plan: The parties shall also file an ADR
plan by December 7, 2016. The ADR plan must indicate the form of ADR
that will be utilized and the date on which it will be conducted.

4.

Discovery Plan: The parties have filed a stipulated Discovery Plan
(Dkt. 36) that the Court incorporates by reference herein and
APPROVES as an Order of the Court.

5.

Early Resolution of Narrowing Issues: The parties shall meet and confer
regarding a timeline for pretrial motions on the issues of qualified
immunity and Monell liability, with the goal of securing an early
determination on potentially dispositive issues. The Court strongly
encourages these early motions to be filed within 60 days. The parties
further agree to discuss the possibility of a phased discovery timeline,
including: (1) early priority for issues bearing upon qualified immunity and
Monell liability; (2) deferring discovery on damages until after the Court
has ruled on any dispositive issues. On or before September 27, 2016, the
parties shall provide the Court with a proposed agreement on these issues.
If no agreement can be reached, the parties should contact Sarah Stellberg,
the law clerk assigned to this case (whose contact information is set forth
below), to facilitate mediation.

6.

Completion of Discovery: All discovery will be completed by April 28,
2017. This is a deadline for the completion of all discovery; it is not a

deadline for discovery requests. Discovery requests must be made far
enough in advance of this deadline to allow completion of the discovery by
the deadline date. As noted above, the parties may, by stipulation, agree to
defer some trial-related discovery until after I have ruled on any dispositive
issues.
7.

Disclosure of Experts:
a.

The Plaintiff shall disclose the experts intended to be called at trial
on or before January 30, 2017.

b.

The Defendant shall disclose the experts intended to be called at trial
on or before March 27, 2017.

c.
8.

All rebuttal experts shall be identified on or before April 13, 2017.

Rules Governing Disclosure of Expert Witnesses: Within the deadlines for
the disclosure of expert witnesses set out above, the parties shall also
provide – for each expert disclosed – the report described in Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(a)(2)(B), as modified by Local Rule 26.2(b). Supplementation to the
expert witness report shall be done in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(e)(1). Pursuant to Local Rule 26.2(b), expert witnesses will not be
allowed to offer any opinion not disclosed in the mandatory Rule 26
disclosures, supplementation, or deposition. This includes rebuttal experts.
No undisclosed expert rebuttal opinion testimony will be allowed at trial.

9.

Scheduling of Trial and Pretrial Conference: Plaintiff’s counsel shall
contact In-Court Deputy Jamie Bracke within one week following the entry

of a decision on all pending dispositive motions to make arrangements for a
telephone scheduling conference between counsel and me in which the trial
and pretrial conference shall be set. If no dispositive motion is filed,
Plaintiff’s counsel shall immediately contact Ms. Bracke within one week
of the dispositive motion filing deadline to set a telephone scheduling
conference.
10.

Handling of Discovery Disputes and Non-Disposition Motion:
a.

I will not refer this case to a magistrate judge for resolution of
discovery disputes and non-dispositive motions. I will keep these
motions on my own docket.

b.

The parties will strictly comply with the meet and confer
requirements of Local Rule 37.1 prior to filing any discovery
motions.

c.

In addition, I will not entertain any written discovery motions until
the Court has been provided with an opportunity to informally
mediate the parties’ dispute. To facilitate that mediation, the
attorneys will first contact Sarah Stellberg, the law clerk assigned to
this case (whose contact information is set forth below), and shall
provide her with a brief written summary of the dispute and the
parties’ respective positions. Ms. Stellberg may be able to offer
suggestions that will resolve the dispute without the need of my
involvement. If necessary, an off-the-record telephonic conference

with me will then be scheduled as soon as possible. I will seek to
resolve the dispute during that conference and may enter appropriate
orders on the basis of the conference. I will only authorize the filing
of a discovery motion and written briefing if we are unable to
resolve the dispute during the conference.
d.

Prior to filing any discovery motions, counsel must certify, not only
that they have complied with Local Rule 37.1, but that they have
complied with the foregoing procedures.

11.

Law Clerk: If counsel has a procedural or legal question that needs to be
brought to my attention, please contact Sarah Stellberg, the law clerk
assigned to this case, at [e-mail] / [phone].

12.

Calendaring Clerk: With regard to any scheduling matters or calendar
issues, please contact my deputy clerk, Jamie Bracke at [phone].

13.

Docketing Clerk: If you have a docketing question, please contact a docket
clerk at [phone].

DATED: September 13, 2016

_________________________
B. Lynn Winmill
Chief Judge
United States District Court