Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01749/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01749-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Employment Discrimination

---

1

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM JOHNSON,

 Plaintiff,

v.

WALMART STORES, INC.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:14-CV-01749- JLT

SCHEDULING ORDER (Fed. R. Civ. P. 16)

Pleading Amendment Deadline: 5/1/2015

Discovery Deadlines:

Initial Disclosures: 3/20/2015

Non-Expert: 11/20/2015

Expert: 3/9/2016

 Mid-Discovery Status Conference:

 7/9/2015 at 9:00 a.m.

Non-Dispositive Motion Deadlines:

Filing: 3/25/2016

Hearing: 4/22/2016

Dispositive Motion Deadlines: 

Filing: 5/13/2016

Hearing: 7/1/2016

Pre-Trial Conference:

8/24/2016 at 10:30 a.m.

 510 19th Street, Bakersfield, CA

Trial: 10/18/2016 at 8:30 a.m.

 510 19th Street, Bakersfield, CA

 Jury trial: 5-6 days

Case 1:14-cv-01749-JLT Document 10 Filed 02/24/15 Page 1 of 6
2

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

I. Date of Scheduling Conference

February 23, 2015.

II. Appearances of Counsel

Gina Cervantes appeared on behalf of Plaintiff.

Steven Gonzalez appeared on behalf of Defendant.

III. Pleading Amendment Deadline

Any requested pleading amendments are ordered to be filed, either through a stipulation or 

motion to amend, no later than May 1, 2015.

IV. Discovery Plan and Cut-Off Date

The parties have agreed to waive the time limits of Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(d)(1) and agree the 

deposition of the plaintiff may exceed 1 day of seven hours.

The parties are ordered to exchange the initial disclosures required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) on 

or before March 20, 2015.

The parties are ordered to complete all discovery pertaining to non-experts no later than 

November 20, 2015 and all discovery related to experts, by March 9, 2016.

The parties are directed to disclose all expert witnesses, in writing, on or before December 4, 

2015, and to disclose all rebuttal experts on or before January 4, 2016. The written designation of 

retained and non-retained experts shall be made pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 26(a)(2), (A), (B), 

and (C) and shall include all information required thereunder. Failure to designate experts in 

compliance with this order may result in the Court excluding the testimony or other evidence offered 

through such experts that are not disclosed pursuant to this order.

The written designation of retained and non-retained experts shall be made pursuant to Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 26(a)(2), (A), (B), and (C) and shall include all information required thereunder.

1

 Failure 

to designate experts in compliance with this order may result in the Court excluding the testimony or 

other evidence offered through such experts that are not disclosed pursuant to this order.

The provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4) and (5) shall apply to all discovery relating to experts 

 

1

In the event an expert will offer opinions related to an independent medical or mental health evaluation, this 

examination SHALL occur sufficiently in advance of the disclosure deadline so the expert’s report fully details the 

expert’s opinions in this regard.

Case 1:14-cv-01749-JLT Document 10 Filed 02/24/15 Page 2 of 6
3

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

and their opinions. Experts must be fully prepared to be examined on all subjects and opinions included 

in the designation. Failure to comply will result in the imposition of sanctions, which may include 

striking the expert designation and preclusion of expert testimony.

The provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e) regarding a party’s duty to timely supplement disclosures 

and responses to discovery requests will be strictly enforced.

A mid-discovery status conference is scheduled for July 9, 2015, at 9:00 a.m. before the 

Honorable Jennifer L. Thurston, United States Magistrate Judge, at the United States District 

Courthouse located at 510 19th Street, Bakersfield, California. A Joint Mid-Discovery Status 

Conference Report, carefully prepared and executed by all counsel, shall be electronically filed in 

CM/ECF, one week before the conference and shall be e-mailed, in Word format to,

JLTorders@caed.uscourts.gov. The status report SHALL detail the discovery efforts made to date and 

that which remains to complete and whether there is any impediment to completing discovery within the 

deadlines set forth in this order. In the event that discovery is proceeding appropriately and there are no 

outstanding issues to discuss, the Court may vacate the hearing. Counsel may appear by telephone via 

the CourtCall service provided a written notification of the intent to do so is provided to the same e-mail 

address as the joint report is sent at least five court days before the conference. 

Pre-Trial Motion Schedule

All non-dispositive pre-trial motions, including any discovery motions, shall be filed no later 

than March 25, 2016, and heard on or before April 22, 2016. Non-dispositive motions are heard at 

9:00 a.m. at the United States District Courthouse in Bakersfield, California, before the Honorable 

Jennifer L. Thurston, United States Magistrate Judge. 

No written discovery motions shall be filed without the prior approval of the assigned Magistrate 

Judge. A party with a discovery dispute must first confer with the opposing party in a good faith effort 

to resolve by agreement the issues in dispute. If that good faith effort is unsuccessful, the moving party 

promptly shall seek a telephonic hearing with all involved parties and the Magistrate Judge. It shall be 

the obligation of the moving party to arrange and originate the conference call to the court. To schedule 

this telephonic hearing, the parties are ordered to contact Courtroom Deputy Clerk, Susan Hall at (661) 

326-6620 or via email at SHall@caed.uscourts.gov. Counsel must comply with Local Rule 251 with 

Case 1:14-cv-01749-JLT Document 10 Filed 02/24/15 Page 3 of 6
4

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

respect to discovery disputes or the motion will be denied without prejudice and dropped from 

calendar.

In scheduling such motions, the Magistrate Judge may grant applications for an order shortening 

time pursuant to Local Rule 144(e). However, if counsel does not obtain an order shortening time, the 

notice of motion must comply with Local Rule 251. 

Counsel may appear and argue non-dispositive motions by telephone, provided a written request 

to so appear is made to the Magistrate Judge's Courtroom Clerk no later than five (5) court days before 

the noticed hearing date. In the event that more than one attorney requests to appear by telephone then 

it shall be the obligation of the moving part(ies) to arrange and originate a conference call to the court. 

All dispositive pre-trial motions shall be filed no later than May 13, 2016, and heard no later 

than July 1, 2016, before the Honorable Jennifer L. Thurston, United States Magistrate Judge, at the 

United States District Courthouse in Bakersfield, California. In scheduling such motions, counsel shall 

comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 and Local Rules 230 and 260.

VI. Motions for Summary Judgment or Summary Adjudication

At least 21 days before filing a motion for summary judgment/adjudication or a cross motion,

the parties are ORDERED to meet, in person or by telephone, to confer about the issues to be raised in 

the motion.

The purpose of the meeting shall be to: 1) avoid filing motions for summary judgment where a 

question of fact exists; 2) determine whether the respondent agrees that the motion has merit in whole or 

in part; 3) discuss whether issues can be resolved without the necessity of briefing; 4) narrow the issues 

for review by the court; 5) explore the possibility of settlement before the parties incur the expense of 

briefing a summary judgment motion; 6) to arrive at a joint statement of undisputed facts.

The moving party shall initiate the meeting and SHALL provide a complete, proposed statement 

of undisputed facts at least five days before the conference. The finalized joint statement of 

undisputed facts SHALL include all facts that the parties agree, for purposes of the motion, may be 

deemed true. In addition to the requirements of Local Rule 260, the moving party shall file the

joint statement of undisputed facts.

In the notice of motion the moving party shall certify that the parties have met and conferred as 

Case 1:14-cv-01749-JLT Document 10 Filed 02/24/15 Page 4 of 6
5

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

ordered above, or set forth a statement of good cause for the failure to meet and confer. 

VII. Pre-Trial Conference Date

August 24, 2016, at 8:30 a.m. at the United States District Courthouse in Bakersfield, California

before the Honorable Jennifer L. Thurston, United States Magistrate Judge.

The parties are ordered to file a Joint Pretrial Statement pursuant to Local Rule 281(a)(2). 

The parties are further directed to submit a digital copy of their pretrial statement in Word format,

directly to Judge Thurston’s chambers, by email at JLTOrders@caed.uscourts.gov. 

Counsel are directed to Rules 281 and 282 of the Local Rules of Practice for the Eastern 

District of California, as to the obligations of counsel in preparing for the pre-trial conference. The 

Court will insist upon strict compliance with those rules. In addition to the matters set forth in the Local 

Rules the Joint Pretrial Statement shall include a Joint Statement of the case to be used by the Court to 

explain the nature of the case to the jury during voir dire.

VIII. Trial Date

October 18, 2016, at 8:30 a.m. at the United States District Courthouse in Bakersfield, 

California, before the Honorable Jennifer L. Thurston, United States Magistrate Judge.

A. This is a Jury trial.

B. Counsels' Estimate of Trial Time: 5-6 days. 

C. Counsel are directed to Local Rules of Practice for the Eastern District of California, 

Rule 285.

IX. Settlement Conference

If the parties believe the matter is in a settlement posture and desire a settlement conference, 

they may file a joint request that the Court schedule a settlement conference.

X. Request for Bifurcation, Appointment of Special Master, or other Techniques to Shorten 

Trial

Not applicable at this time.

XI. Related Matters Pending

There are no pending related matters.

///

Case 1:14-cv-01749-JLT Document 10 Filed 02/24/15 Page 5 of 6
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

XII. Compliance with Federal Procedure

All counsel are expected to familiarize themselves with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 

the Local Rules of Practice of the Eastern District of California, and to keep abreast of any amendments 

thereto. The Court must insist upon compliance with these Rules to efficiently handle its increasing 

case load, and sanctions will be imposed for failure to follow both the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 

and the Local Rules of Practice for the Eastern District of California.

XIII. Effect of this Order

The foregoing order represents the best estimate of the court and counsel as to the agenda most 

suitable to dispose of this case. The trial date reserved is specifically reserved for this case. If the 

parties determine at any time that the schedule outlined in this order cannot be met, counsel are ordered 

to notify the court immediately of that fact so that adjustments may be made, either by stipulation or by 

subsequent status conference.

The dates set in this Order are considered to be firm and will not be modified absent a 

showing of good cause even if the request to modify is made by stipulation. Stipulations extending 

the deadlines contained herein will not be considered unless they are accompanied by affidavits or 

declarations, and where appropriate attached exhibits, which establish good cause for granting 

the relief requested.

Failure to comply with this order may result in the imposition of sanctions. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 24, 2015 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01749-JLT Document 10 Filed 02/24/15 Page 6 of 6