Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01126/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01126-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1402 Medical Malpractice

---

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

27

28

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LUELLAR JOHNSON, DORONICA JOHNSON, ) 2:07-CV-01126-GEB-KJM

JONATHAN CHAPPELL, a Minor and )

ALEXANDRA DORRIS, a Minor by and )

through their Guardians Ad Litem, )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. ) STATUS (PRETRIAL

) SCHEDULING) ORDER

STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF )

CORRECTIONS (HIGH DESERT STATE )

PRISON) and DOES 1 - 100, )

) 

Defendants. )

)

The status (pretrial scheduling) conference scheduled in

this case for September 17, 2007, is vacated since the joint status

report submitted by the parties obviates the need for the conference. 

The following Order issues based on the parties’ joint status report

(“JSR”) and available dates.

DOE DEFENDANTS

The Joint Status Report states “plaintiff expects to

discover the names and identities of Doe defendants on or before

January 31, 2007.” JSR at 2. Plaintiff has until February 29, 2008,

to file a motion in which leave is sought under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)

Case 2:07-cv-01126-GEB -KJM Document 12 Filed 09/14/07 Page 1 of 6
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

27

28

The parties are advised that the Magistrate Judges in the 1

Eastern District are responsible for resolving discovery disputes. See

(continued...)

2

to file an Amended Complaint which could add a party to this action. 

The motion must be noticed for hearing on the Court’s earliest

available law and motion date. If leave is not sought as stated, this

will automatically effectuate dismissal of Does not involved in any

filed motion, or of all Does if no motion is filed.

ADDED DEFENDANT’S OPPORTUNITY

TO SEEK AMENDMENT OF THIS ORDER

If Plaintiff substitutes a named defendant in place of a Doe

defendant, plaintiff shall serve a copy of this Order on that

defendant concurrently with the service of process. 

That defendant has 30 days after said service within which

to file a "Notice of Proposed Modification of Status Order," which

request is not required to meet the good cause standard, provided it

is made within this 30-day period.

SERVICE, JOINDER OF ADDITIONAL PARTIES, AMENDMENT 

No further service, joinder of parties or amendments to

pleadings is permitted, except with leave of Court, good cause having

been shown. 

DISCOVERY

All discovery shall be completed by September 15, 2008. In

this context, “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 orders,

if necessary, and, where discovery has been ordered, the order has

been complied with or, alternatively, the time allowed for such

compliance shall have expired.1

Case 2:07-cv-01126-GEB -KJM Document 12 Filed 09/14/07 Page 2 of 6
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

27

28

(...continued) 1

Local Rule 72-302(c)(1). Accordingly, counsel shall direct all

discovery-related matters to the Magistrate Judge assigned to this case.

A party conducting discovery near the discovery “completion” date runs

the risk of losing the opportunity to have a judge resolve discovery

motions pursuant to the Local Rules.

This time deadline does not apply to motions for continuances, 2

temporary restraining orders, emergency applications, or motions under

Rule 16(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

3

Each party shall comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

26(a)(2)’s initial expert witness disclosure and report requirements

on or before April 14, 2008, and with the rebuttal expert disclosures

authorized under the Rule on or before May 19, 2008. 

MOTION HEARING SCHEDULE

The last hearing date for motions shall be November 17,

2008, at 9:00 a.m.2

Motions shall be filed in accordance with Local Rule 78-

230(b). Opposition papers shall be filed in accordance with Local

Rule 78-230(c). Failure to comply with this local rule may be deemed

consent to the motion and the Court may dispose of the motion

summarily. Brydges v. Lewis, 18 F.3d 651, 652-53 (9th Cir. 1994). 

Further, failure to timely oppose a summary judgment motion may result

in the granting of that motion if the movant shifts the burden to the

nonmovant to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact remains for

trial. Cf. Marshall v. Gates, 44 F.3d 722 (9th Cir. 1995). 

Absent highly unusual circumstances, reconsideration of a

motion is appropriate only where:

(1) The Court is presented with newly discovered evidence

that could not reasonably have been discovered prior to the filing of

the party’s motion or opposition papers;

Case 2:07-cv-01126-GEB -KJM Document 12 Filed 09/14/07 Page 3 of 6
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

27

28

The failure of one or more of the parties to participate in 3

the preparation of any joint document required to be filed in this case

does not excuse the other parties from their obligation to timely file

(continued...)

4

(2) The Court committed clear error or the initial decision

was manifestly unjust; or

(3) There is an intervening change in controlling law.

A motion for reconsideration based on newly discovered evidence shall

set forth, in detail, the reason why said evidence could not

reasonably have been discovered prior to the filing of the party’s

motion or opposition papers. Motions for reconsideration shall comply

with Local Rule 78-230(k) in all other respects.

The parties are cautioned that an untimely motion

characterized as a motion in limine may be summarily denied. A motion

in limine addresses the admissibility of evidence.

 FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE

The final pretrial conference is set for February 2, 2009,

at 1:30 p.m. The parties are cautioned that the lead attorney who

WILL TRY THE CASE for each party shall attend the final pretrial

conference. In addition, all persons representing themselves and

appearing in propria persona must attend the pretrial conference.

The parties are warned that non-trialworthy issues could be

eliminated sua sponte “[i]f the pretrial conference discloses that no

material facts are in dispute and that the undisputed facts entitle

one of the parties to judgment as a matter of law.” Portsmouth Square

v. S’holders Protective Comm., 770 F.2d 866, 869 (9th Cir. 1985). 

//

The parties shall file a JOINT pretrial statement no later

than seven (7) calendar days prior to the final pretrial conference.3

Case 2:07-cv-01126-GEB -KJM Document 12 Filed 09/14/07 Page 4 of 6
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

27

28

(...continued) 3

the document in accordance with this Order. In the event a party fails

to participate as ordered, the party or parties timely submitting the

document shall include a declaration explaining why they were unable to

obtain the cooperation of the other party. 

5

The joint pretrial statement shall specify the issues for trial and

shall estimate the length of the trial. The Court uses the parties’

joint pretrial statement to prepare its final pretrial order and could

issue the final pretrial order without holding the scheduled final

pretrial conference. See Mizwicki v. Helwig, 196 F.3d 828, 833 (7th

Cir. 1999) (“There is no requirement that the court hold a pretrial

conference.”). The final pretrial order supersedes the pleadings and

controls the facts and issues which may be presented at trial. Issues

asserted in pleadings which are not preserved for trial in the final

pretrial order cannot be raised at trial. Hotel Emp., et al. Health

Tr. v. Elks Lodge 1450, 827 F.2d 1324, 1329 (9th Cir. 1987) (“Issues

not preserved in the pretrial order are eliminated from the action.”);

Valley Ranch Dev. Co. v. F.D.I.C., 960 F.2d 550, 554 (5th Cir. 1992)

(indicating that an issue omitted from the pretrial order is waived,

even if it appeared in the pleading); cf. Raney v. Dist. of Columbia,

892 F. Supp. 283 (D.D.C. 1995) (refusing to modify the pretrial order

to allow assertion of a previously-pled statute of limitations

defense); Olympia Co. v. Celotex Corp., 597 F. Supp. 285, 289 (E.D.

La. 1984) (indicating that “[a]ny factual contention, legal

contention, any claim for relief or defense in whole or in part, or

affirmative matter not set forth in [the pretrial statement] shall be

deemed . . . withdrawn, notwithstanding the contentions of any

pleadings or other papers previously filed [in the action]”). 

Case 2:07-cv-01126-GEB -KJM Document 12 Filed 09/14/07 Page 5 of 6
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

27

28

6

If possible, at the time of filing the joint pretrial

statement counsel shall also email it in a format compatible with

WordPerfect to: geborders@caed.uscourts.gov.

TRIAL SETTING

Trial is set for May 5, 2009, commencing at 9:00 a.m. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 14, 2007

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:07-cv-01126-GEB -KJM Document 12 Filed 09/14/07 Page 6 of 6