Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00860/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00860-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

TAMARA SMITH; WAYNE SMITH;

GEORGE DENTON,

Plaintiffs,

v.

TYRONE SPENCER, et al.,

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:07-cv-0860 OWW GSA

SCHEDULING CONFERENCE ORDER 

Discovery Cut-Off: 12/31/08

Non-Dispositive Motion

Filing Deadline: 1/15/09

Dispositive Motion Filing

Deadline: 1/30/09

Settlement Conference Date:

None

Pre-Trial Conference

Date: 4/13/09 11:00 Ctrm. 3

Trial Date: 5/27/09 9:00

Ctrm. 3 (JT-10 days)

I. Date of Scheduling Conference.

January 11, 2007.

II. Appearances Of Counsel.

Anthony Boskovich, Esq., appeared on behalf of Plaintiffs.

Dan Farrar, Esq., appeared on behalf of all Defendants

except Mark Puthuff, John Doe and Richard Roe. As to Defendant

Puthuff, Plaintiff will determine, within 60 days, whether or not

to dismiss without prejudice as to that Defendant. 

Case 1:07-cv-00860-OWW -GSA Document 15 Filed 01/15/08 Page 1 of 9
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

III. Summary of Pleadings. 

1. On June 2, 2006, Plaintiffs attended the Apricot Fiesta

in Patterson, California.

2. Plaintiffs encountered Defendant Deputies and obeyed

all commands, but despite this, were harassed both verbally and

physically by the Deputies.

3. Plaintiffs attempted to go home but were unlawfully

pursued by the Deputies. Wayne Smith, a veteran of the Iraq war,

was illegally detained and excessive force was used. George

Denton, a disabled man, was also subjected to excessive force. 

Tamara Smith, Wayne’s mother and an employee of the Mountain View

Police Department, attempted to calm the situation but was also

subjected to excessive force.

4. Eventually Messrs. Smith and Denton were arrested, and

Mr. Smith was subjected to verbal abuse by being accused of being

dishonorably discharged and having done nothing for his country.

5. In transporting these men, Deputies refused to

accommodate Mr. Denton’s obvious physical disabilities, and

instead demeaned and humiliated him by forcing him to crawl on

the ground to the Sheriff’s vehicle.

6. “Chief” Spencer had a grudge against Ms. Smith and

ordered his subordinates to falsify their police reports and to

convince the Stanislaus County District Attorney to prosecute

her.

7. “Chief” Spencer also wrote Ms. Smith’s employer in an

attempt to retaliate against her and have her terminated from her

employment. 

8. Despite Plaintiffs’ allegations, the Deputies acted

Case 1:07-cv-00860-OWW -GSA Document 15 Filed 01/15/08 Page 2 of 9
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

reasonably at all times and in a good faith belief that their

actions were proper. The Plaintiffs in this action violated

various state laws and created the problems of which they now

complain. 

IV. Orders Re Amendments To Pleadings.

1. The parties do not contemplate amending the pleadings

at this time. 

V. Factual Summary.

A. Admitted Facts Which Are Deemed Proven Without Further

Proceedings. 

1. The individually named Defendants are employees of

the Stanislaus County Sheriff’s Department. 

2. The Stanislaus County Sheriff’s Department is

contractually obligated to provide police services for the City

of Patterson. 

3. The incident occurred on or about June 2, 2006, at

the Apricot Fiesta in Patterson, California.

4. Wayne Smith and George Denton were arrested on

June 2, 2006. 

5. A complaint was filed against Tamara Smith and

that case is pending in the County of Stanislaus, State of

California, Superior Court, for resisting or obstructing an

officer in the performance of duties.

B. Contested Facts.

1. All remaining facts are disputed. 

VI. Legal Issues.

A. Uncontested.

1. Jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and the

Case 1:07-cv-00860-OWW -GSA Document 15 Filed 01/15/08 Page 3 of 9
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

Federal Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 et seq. 

 2. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391.

3. As to supplemental claims, the parties agree that

the substantive law of the State of California provides the rule

of decision. 

B. Contested. 

1. All remaining legal issues are contested. 

VII. Consent to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction.

1. The parties have not consented to transfer the 

case to the Magistrate Judge for all purposes, including trial.

VIII. Corporate Identification Statement.

1. Any nongovernmental corporate party to any action in

this court shall file a statement identifying all its parent

corporations and listing any entity that owns 10% or more of the

party's equity securities. A party shall file the statement with

its initial pleading filed in this court and shall supplement the

statement within a reasonable time of any change in the

information. 

IX. Discovery Plan and Cut-Off Date.

1. The parties are ordered to complete all discovery on

or before December 31, 2008.

2. The parties are directed to disclose all expert

witnesses, in writing, on or before October 31, 2008. Any

rebuttal or supplemental expert disclosures will be made on or

before December 1, 2008. The parties will comply with the

provisions of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) regarding

their expert designations. Local Rule 16-240(a) notwithstanding,

the written designation of experts shall be made pursuant to F.

Case 1:07-cv-00860-OWW -GSA Document 15 Filed 01/15/08 Page 4 of 9
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

5

R. Civ. P. Rule 26(a)(2), (A) and (B) 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.

3. The provisions of F. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4) shall 

apply to all discovery relating to experts and their opinions. 

Experts may 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. 

X. Pre-Trial Motion Schedule.

1. All Non-Dispositive Pre-Trial Motions, including any

discovery motions, will be filed on or before January 15, 2009,

and heard on February 20, 2009, at 9:00 a.m. before Magistrate

Judge Gary S. Austin in Courtroom 10. 

2. In scheduling such motions, the Magistrate

Judge may grant applications for an order shortening time

pursuant to Local Rule 142(d). However, if counsel does not

obtain an order shortening time, the notice of motion must comply

with Local Rule 251. 

3. All Dispositive Pre-Trial Motions are to be

filed no later than January 30, 2009, and will be heard on March

9, 2009, at 10:00 a.m. before the Honorable Oliver W. Wanger,

United States District Judge, in Courtroom 3, 7th Floor. In

scheduling such motions, counsel shall comply with Local Rule

230. 

XI. Pre-Trial Conference Date.

1. April 13, 2009, at 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom 3, 7th

Case 1:07-cv-00860-OWW -GSA Document 15 Filed 01/15/08 Page 5 of 9
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

Floor, before the Honorable Oliver W. Wanger, United States

District Judge. 

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

3. Counsel's attention is 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.

XII. Trial Date.

1. May 27, 2009, at the hour of 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 3,

7th Floor, before the Honorable Oliver W. Wanger, United States

District Judge. 

2. This is a jury trial.

3. Counsels' Estimate Of Trial Time:

a. 10 days.

4. Counsels' attention is directed to Local Rules

of Practice for the Eastern District of California, Rule 285. 

XIII. Settlement Conference.

1. The parties will notify the Courtroom Deputy Clerk in

the event a Settlement Conference will be productive. 

2. Unless otherwise permitted in advance by the

Court, the attorneys who will try the case shall appear at the

Settlement Conference with the parties and the person or persons

having full authority to negotiate and settle the case on any

terms at the conference. 

3. Permission for a party [not attorney] to attend

by telephone may be granted upon request, by letter, with a copy

Case 1:07-cv-00860-OWW -GSA Document 15 Filed 01/15/08 Page 6 of 9
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

7

to the other parties, if the party [not attorney] lives and works

outside the Eastern District of California, and attendance in

person would constitute a hardship. If telephone attendance is

allowed, the party must be immediately available throughout the

conference until excused regardless of time zone differences. 

Any other special arrangements desired in cases where settlement

authority rests with a governing body, shall also be proposed in

advance by letter copied to all other parties. 

4. Confidential Settlement Conference Statement. 

At least five (5) days prior to the Settlement Conference the

parties shall submit, directly to the Magistrate Judge's

chambers, a confidential settlement conference statement. The

statement should not be filed with the Clerk of the Court nor

served on any other party. Each statement shall be clearly

marked "confidential" with the date and time of the Settlement

Conference indicated prominently thereon. Counsel are urged to

request the return of their statements if settlement is not

achieved and if such a request is not made the Court will dispose

of the statement.

5. The Confidential Settlement Conference

Statement shall include the following: 

a. A brief statement of the facts of the 

case.

b. A brief statement of the claims and 

defenses, i.e., statutory or other grounds upon which the claims

are founded; a forthright evaluation of the parties' likelihood

of prevailing on the claims and defenses; and a description of

the major issues in dispute.

Case 1:07-cv-00860-OWW -GSA Document 15 Filed 01/15/08 Page 7 of 9
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

8

c. A summary of the proceedings to date.

d. An estimate of the cost and time to be

expended for further discovery, pre-trial and trial.

e. The relief sought.

f. The parties' position on settlement,

including present demands and offers and a history of past

settlement discussions, offers and demands. 

XIV. Request For Bifurcation, Appointment Of Special Master, 

Or Other Techniques To Shorten Trial. 

1. In the event extended Monell evidence is required, the

trial shall be trifurcated. Liability and the amount of damages,

if any, except punitive damages, shall be tried in the first

phase. The second phase shall address Monell issues. The third

phase shall address the amount of punitive damages, if any. 

XV. Related Matters Pending.

1. There is a related matter entitled People v. Tamara

Smith, set for trial in the Superior Court of California, County

of Stanislaus, on February 4, 2008.

XVI. Compliance With Federal Procedure.

1. The Court requires compliance with the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of Practice for the

Eastern District of California. To aid the court in the

efficient administration of this case, all counsel are directed

to familiarize themselves with the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure and the Local Rules of Practice of the Eastern District

of California, and keep abreast of any amendments thereto.

XVII. Effect Of This Order.

1. The foregoing order represents the best

Case 1:07-cv-00860-OWW -GSA Document 15 Filed 01/15/08 Page 8 of 9
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

9

estimate of the court and counsel as to the agenda most suitable

to bring this case to resolution. 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 scheduling conference. 

2. 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. 

3. Failure to comply with this order may result in

the imposition of sanctions. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 11, 2008 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00860-OWW -GSA Document 15 Filed 01/15/08 Page 9 of 9