Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00236/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00236-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Personal Injury

---

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 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

YVONNE HALL, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER 

CORPORATION dba AMTRACK, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:14-cv-00236-GEB-AC 

SUPERCEDING STATUS (PRETRIAL 

SCHEDULING) ORDER 

 The February 13, 2015 Order Amending the Pretrial 

Scheduling Order, (ECF No. 11), is superseded by this order.1

SERVICE, JOINDER OF ADDITIONAL PARTIES, AMENDMENT 

 No further service, joinder of parties or amendments to 

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

shown. 

DISCOVERY 

 Non-Expert discovery shall be completed by July 9, 

2015. Expert discovery shall be completed by December 3, 2015. 

“Completed” means all discovery shall be conducted so that any 

dispute relative to discovery shall have been resolved by 

appropriate orders, if necessary, and, where discovery has been 

 

1

 This superseding order issues because most of the scheduling dates 

herein were previously issued, but were vacated by the December 12, 2014 

recusal order, (ECF No. 8). It was attempted to keep those scheduling dates or 

to modify them, if necessary, as little as possible. 

Case 2:14-cv-00236-GEB-AC Document 12 Filed 02/18/15 Page 1 of 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 

2 

ordered, the order has been complied with on or before the 

prescribed “completion” date. 

 Each party shall comply with Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 26(a)(2)(B) and (C)’s initial expert witness disclosure 

requirements on or before September 9, 2015, and any 

contradictory and/or rebuttal expert disclosure authorized under 

Rule 26(a)(2)(D)(ii) on or before October 13, 2015. 

MOTION HEARING SCHEDULE 

 The last hearing date for a motion is February 8, 2016, 

commencing at 9:00 a.m. Any motion shall be briefed as prescribed 

in Local Rule 230. 

 The parties are cautioned that an untimely motion 

characterized as a motion in limine may be summarily denied. 

FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE 

 The final pretrial conference is set for April 4, 2016, 

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 shall file a JOINT pretrial statement no 

later than seven (7) calendar days prior to the final pretrial 

conference. The joint pretrial statement shall address the 

applicable portions of Local Rule 281(b), and shall set forth 

each theory of liability (“claim”) and affirmative defense which 

remains to be tried, and the ultimate facts on which each 

theory/defense is based. Furthermore, each party shall estimate 

the length of trial. The Court uses the parties’ joint pretrial 

Case 2:14-cv-00236-GEB-AC Document 12 Filed 02/18/15 Page 2 of 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 

3 

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.”). 

 Final pretrial procedures are “critical for ‘promoting 

efficiency and conserving judicial resources by identifying the 

real issues prior to trial, thereby saving time and expense for 

everyone.’” Friedman & Friedman, Ltd. v. Tim McCandless, Inc., 

606 F.3d 494, 498 (8th Cir. 2010) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 

Advisory Committee Note (1983 Amendment to subdivision (c)). 

“Toward that end, Rule 16 directs courts to use pretrial 

conferences to weed out unmeritorious claims and defenses before 

trial begins.” Smith v. Gulf Oil Co., 995 F.2d 638, 642 (6th Cir. 

1993). The parties are therefore provided notice that a claim or 

affirmative defense may be dismissed sua sponte if it is not 

shown to be triable in the joint final pretrial statement. Cf. 

Portland Retail Druggists Ass’n v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, 662 

F.2d 641, 645 (9th Cir. 1981) (indicating that a party shall be 

provided notice and an opportunity to respond with facts 

sufficient to justify having a claim or affirmative defense 

proceed to trial); Portsmouth Square, Inc. v. S’holders 

Protective Comm., 770 F.2d 866, 869 (9th Cir. 1985) (stating “the 

district court has . . . authority to grant summary judgment sua 

sponte in the context of a final pretrial conference”). 

 If feasible, 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. 

Case 2:14-cv-00236-GEB-AC Document 12 Filed 02/18/15 Page 3 of 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 

4 

TRIAL SETTING 

 Trial shall commence at 9:00 a.m. on May 17, 2016. 

EARLY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE 

 The parties state they “are interested in an effort to 

settle the matter, and would welcome a settlement conference with 

the trial judge or a magistrate.” (Joint Status Report 4:2-3, ECF 

No. 10.) 

 The parties are hereby authorized to contact the 

courtroom deputy assigned to a magistrate judge for the purpose 

of attempting to schedule a settlement conference at a mutually 

convenient date and time. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 17, 2015 

 

Case 2:14-cv-00236-GEB-AC Document 12 Filed 02/18/15 Page 4 of 4