Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00414/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00414-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1983 Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

 Although the parties were supposed to file a joint status report, defendants indicate that

their attempts to solicit plaintiff’s cooperation to prepare a joint report were unsuccessful. 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MANUEL AYALA ALVAREZ,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-0414 FCD EFB PS

vs.

DEPUTY ROBINSON, et al., 

ORDER

Defendant. 

 /

The parties have filed separate status reports in this action.1

 Accordingly, the court

makes the following findings and orders:

SERVICE OF PROCESS

All defendants have been served and no further service is permitted except with leave of

court, good cause having been shown.

JOINDER OF PARTIES/AMENDMENTS

No further joinder of parties or amendments to pleadings is permitted except with leave

of court, good cause having been shown.

Case 2:06-cv-00414-FCD-EFB Document 25 Filed 05/23/07 Page 1 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 2

 Any reference to “counsel” in this order includes parties appearing in propria persona.

2

JURISDICTION/VENUE

Jurisdiction is undisputed and is hereby found to be proper, as is venue.

MOTION HEARING SCHEDULES

All law and motion except as to discovery is left open, save and except that it shall be

conducted so as to be completed by December 17, 2007. The word “completed” in this context

means that all law and motion matters must be heard by the above date. Counsel (and/or pro se

parties)2 are cautioned to refer to the local rules regarding the requirements for noticing such

motions on the court’s regularly scheduled law and motion calendar. This paragraph does not

preclude motions for continuances, temporary restraining orders or other emergency

applications, and is subject to any special scheduling set forth in the “MISCELLANEOUS

PROVISIONS” paragraph below.

The parties should keep in mind that the purpose of law and motion is to narrow and

refine the legal issues raised by the case, and to dispose of by pretrial motion those issues that

are susceptible to resolution without trial. To accomplish that purpose, the parties need to

identify and fully research the issues presented by the case, and then examine those issues in

light of the evidence gleaned through discovery. If it appears to counsel after examining the

legal issues and facts that an issue can be resolved by pretrial motion, counsel are to file the

appropriate motion by the law and motion cutoff set forth above.

ALL PURELY LEGAL ISSUES ARE TO BE RESOLVED BY TIMELY PRETRIAL

MOTION. Counsel are reminded that motions in limine are procedural devices designed to

address the admissibility of evidence. COUNSEL ARE CAUTIONED THAT THE COURT

WILL LOOK WITH DISFAVOR UPON SUBSTANTIVE MOTIONS PRESENTED IN THE

GUISE OF MOTIONS IN LIMINE AT THE TIME OF TRIAL. 

////

Case 2:06-cv-00414-FCD-EFB Document 25 Filed 05/23/07 Page 2 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

3

DISCOVERY

All discovery is left open, save and except that it shall be so conducted as to be

completed by October 17, 2007. The word “completed” means that all discovery shall have been

conducted so that all depositions have been taken and any disputes relative to discovery shall

have been resolved by appropriate order if necessary and, where discovery has been ordered, the

order has been complied with. Motions to compel discovery must be noticed on the

undersigned’s calendar in accordance with the local rules of this court and so that such motions

will be heard not later than September 17, 2007.

Defendants have requested, in the event of a discovery dispute, that the meet and confer

requirements of Local Rule 37-251 be waived, and that the parties instead be permitted to submit

briefs regarding any such dispute pursuant to Local Rule 78-302(m) (regarding motions in

prisoner cases). Because it is unclear to the court whether or not plaintiff is currently

incarcerated, the court reserves ruling on defendant’s request until such time as a discovery

dispute arises. 

EXPERT DISCLOSURE

All counsel are to designate in writing and file with the court, and serve upon all other

parties, the names of all experts that they propose to tender at trial not later than August 17,

2007. An expert witness not appearing on said lists will not be permitted to testify unless the

party offering the witness demonstrates: (a) that the necessity of the witness could not have been

reasonably anticipated at the time the lists were exchanged; (b) the court and opposing counsel

were promptly notified upon discovery of the witness; and (c) that the witness was promptly

proffered for deposition. Failure to provide the information required along with the expert

designation may lead to preclusion of the expert’s testimony or other appropriate sanctions.

For the purposes of this scheduling order, experts are defined as “percipient” and “Rule

26” experts. Both types of experts shall be listed. Percipient experts are persons who, because

of their expertise, have rendered expert opinions in the normal course of their work duties or

Case 2:06-cv-00414-FCD-EFB Document 25 Filed 05/23/07 Page 3 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 3

 The court is not interested in a designation of non-testifying Rule 26 experts.

4

observations pertinent to the issues in the case. Another term for their opinions are “historical

opinions.” Percipient experts are experts who, unless also designated as Rule 26 experts, are

limited to testifying to their historical opinions and the reasons for them. That is, they may be

asked to testify about their opinions given in the past and the whys and wherefores concerning

the development of those opinions. However, they may not be asked to render a current opinion

for the purposes of the litigation.

Rule 26 experts, who may be percipient experts as well, shall be specifically designated

by a party to be a testifying expert for the purposes of the litigation.3

 The Rule 26 expert may

express opinions formed for the purposes of the litigation. A party designating a Rule 26 expert

will be assumed to have acquired the express permission of the witness to be so listed.

The parties shall comply with the information disclosure provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P.

26(a)(2) for any expert, who is in whole or in part designated as a Rule 26 expert. This

information is due at the time of designation. Failure to supply the required information may

result in the Rule 26 expert being stricken. All Rule 26 experts are to be fully prepared to render

an informed opinion at the time of designation so that they may fully participate in any

deposition taken by the opposing party. Rule 26 experts will not be permitted to testify at trial as

to any information gathered or evaluated, or opinion formed, which should have been reasonably

available at the time of designation. The court will closely scrutinize for discovery abuse

deposition opinions which differ markedly in nature and/or in bases from those expressed in the

mandatory information disclosure.

FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE

The final pretrial conference is set in Courtroom No. 25 of the undersigned, on March 19,

2008, at 10:00 a.m. Counsel are cautioned that counsel appearing for pretrial will in fact try the

matter. Counsel for all parties are to be fully prepared for trial at the time of the pretrial

Case 2:06-cv-00414-FCD-EFB Document 25 Filed 05/23/07 Page 4 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

4

 However, with respect to the listing of undisputed facts, the court will accept

agreements as to evidentiary facts. 

5

conference, with no matters remaining to be accomplished except production of witnesses for

oral testimony. Counsel are referred to E.D. Cal. L.R. 16-281 and 16-282 relating to pretrial

statements and conferences. A FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH E.D. CAL. L.R. 16-281 AND

16-282 WILL BE GROUNDS FOR SANCTIONS. 

Notwithstanding E.D. Cal. L.R. 16-281, the parties shall submit a joint pretrial statement

not later than ten (10) court days prior to the pretrial conference. The joint pretrial statement

shall conform with the requirements of E.D. Cal. L.R. 16-281(b). The undisputed facts and

disputed factual issues shall be set forth in two separate sections. The parties should identify

those facts which are relevant to each separate cause of action. In this regard, the parties are to

number each individual fact or factual issues. Where the parties are unable to agree as to what

factual issues are properly before the court for trial, they should nevertheless list in the section

on “DISPUTED FACTUAL ISSUES” all issues asserted by any of the parties and explain by

parenthetical the controversy concerning each issue. The parties should keep in mind that, in

general, each fact should relate or correspond to an element of the relevant cause of action. The

parties should also keep in mind that the purpose of listing the disputed factual issues is to

apprise the court and all parties about the precise issues that will be litigated at trial. The court is

not interested in a listing of all evidentiary facts underlying the issues that are in dispute.4

 The

joint statement of undisputed facts and disputed factual issues is to be filed with the court

concurrently with the filing of the joint pretrial statement. 

Pursuant to E.D. Cal. L.R. 281(b)(10) and (11), the parties are required to provide in their

pretrial statement a list of witnesses and exhibits that they propose to proffer at trial, no matter

for what purpose. These lists shall not be contained in the pretrial statement itself, but shall be

attached as separate documents to be used as addenda to the final pretrial order. Plaintiff’s

exhibits shall be listed numerically; defendant’s exhibits shall be listed alphabetically. The

Case 2:06-cv-00414-FCD-EFB Document 25 Filed 05/23/07 Page 5 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

6

pretrial order will contain a stringent standard for the proffering of witnesses and exhibits at trial

not listed in the pretrial order. Counsel are cautioned that the standard will be strictly applied. 

On the other hand, the listing of exhibits or witnesses which counsel do not intend or use will be

viewed as an abuse of the court’s processes. 

Counsel are reminded that, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16, it will be their duty at the

pretrial conference to aid the court in (a) formulation and simplification of issues and the

elimination of meritless claims or defenses; (b) settling of facts which should be properly

admitted; and (c) avoidance of unnecessary proof and cumulative evidence. The parties must

prepare their joint pretrial statement, and participate in good faith at the pretrial conference, with

these aims in mind. A FAILURE TO DO SO MAY RESULT IN THE IMPOSITION OF

SANCTIONS which may include monetary sanctions, orders precluding proof, eliminations of

claims or defenses, or such other sanctions as the court deems appropriate. 

TRIAL SETTING

Trial is set for June 17, 2008, at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom No. 2 of the Honorable Frank C.

Damrell, Jr. The court expects the trial will take approximately three days. As no jury demand

has been made, trial will be by the court.

SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE

A Settlement Conference will be set at the time of the Pretrial Conference.

MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

As provided in the Discovery paragraph above, defendants request, in the event of a

discovery dispute, to file separate briefing rather than the meet and confer and joint statement

requirements of Local Rule 37-251 due to plaintiff’s in custody status is reserved until such time

that a dispute actually arises. 

////

////

////

Case 2:06-cv-00414-FCD-EFB Document 25 Filed 05/23/07 Page 6 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

7

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b), THIS COURT SUMMARIZES THE SCHEDULING

ORDER AS FOLLOWS:

1. The parties may conduct discovery until October 17, 2007. 

Motions to compel discovery are to be noticed to be heard by

September 17, 2007, as more specifically described in this order. 

2. The parties shall disclose experts, as described herein, by August 17,

2007. 

3. All pretrial motions, except motions to compel discovery, shall be

completed as described herein on or before December 17, 2007.

4. The final pretrial conference (as described in E.D. Cal. L.R. 16-282) in

this case is set for March 19, 2008, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom No. 25

before the undersigned. Pretrial statements shall be filed in accord with

E.D. Cal. L.R. 16-281 and 16-282.

6. This matter is set for trial on June 17, 2008, at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom No.

2, before the Honorable Frank C. Damrell, Jr. 

DATED: May 23, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-00414-FCD-EFB Document 25 Filed 05/23/07 Page 7 of 7