Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01679/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01679-3/pdf.json

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

27 

28 

1

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

WILLIAM A. SASSMAN, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., Governor 

of California, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:14-cv-01679-MCE-KJN 

PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER 

The Court has reviewed the parties’ submissions with regard to Plaintiff’s Motion 

for Reconsideration (ECF No. 35), which was still pending, in part, as to Plaintiff’s 

request to further expedite the discovery and summary judgment schedule. That Motion 

is now DENIED in its entirety, and the Court makes the following Pretrial Scheduling 

Order. 

I. DISCOVERY 

 All discovery, with the exception of expert discovery, shall be completed by

November 28, 2015. 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 order if necessary and, where 

discovery has been ordered, the order has been obeyed. All motions to compel 

Case 2:14-cv-01679-MCE-KJN Document 47 Filed 11/21/14 Page 1 of 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 

2

discovery must be noticed on the magistrate judge’s calendar in accordance with the 

local rules of this Court. 

II. DISCLOSURE OF EXPERT WITNESSES 

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

parties the name, address, and area of expertise of each expert that they propose to 

tender at trial not later than December 31, 2015.

1

 The designation shall be 

accompanied by a written report prepared and signed by the witness. The report shall 

comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B). 

 Within twenty (20) days after the designation of expert witnesses, any party may 

designate a supplemental list of expert witnesses who will express an opinion on a 

subject covered by an expert designated by an adverse party. The right to designate a 

supplemental expert for rebuttal purposes only shall apply to a party who has not 

previously disclosed an expert witness on the date set for expert witness disclosure by 

this Pretrial Scheduling Order. 

 Failure of a party to comply with the disclosure schedule as set forth above in all 

likelihood will preclude that party from calling the expert witness at the time of trial. An 

expert witness not appearing on the designation will not be permitted to testify unless the 

party offering the witness demonstrates: (a) that the necessity for the witness could not 

have been reasonably anticipated at the time the list was proffered; (b) that the Court 

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

the witness was promptly made available for deposition. 

 For purposes of this Pretrial Scheduling Order, an “expert” is any person who may 

be used at trial to present evidence under Rules 702, 703, and 705 of the Federal Rules 

of Evidence, which include both “percipient experts” (persons who, because of their 

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

 1 The discovery of experts will include whether any motions based on Daubert v. Merrell Dow 

Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) and/or Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999) 

are anticipated. 

Case 2:14-cv-01679-MCE-KJN Document 47 Filed 11/21/14 Page 2 of 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 

3

observations pertinent to the issues in the case) and “retained experts” (persons 

specifically designated by a party to be a testifying expert for the purposes of litigation). 

 Each party shall identify whether a disclosed expert is percipient, retained, or 

both. It will be assumed that a party designating a retained expert has acquired the 

express permission of the witness to be so listed. Parties designating percipient experts 

must state in the designation who is responsible for arranging the deposition of such 

persons. 

 All experts designated are to be fully prepared at the time of designation to render 

an informed opinion, and give their bases for their opinion, so that they will be able to 

give full and complete testimony at any deposition taken by the opposing party. Experts 

will not be permitted to testify at the trial as to any information gathered or evaluated, or 

opinion formed, after deposition taken subsequent to designation. 

 Counsel are instructed to complete all discovery of expert witnesses in a timely 

manner in order to comply with the Court’s deadline for filing dispositive motions. 

III. MOTION HEARING SCHEDULE 

 Motions for summary judgment shall be heard on March 19, 2015. All papers 

should be filed in conformity with the Local Rules. However, with respect to Motions for 

Summary Judgment only, the parties shall comply with the following filing deadlines: 

Motion for Summary 

Judgment 

Filed not later than January 30, 2015

Opposition Filed not later than February 20, 2015

Reply Filed not later than March 5, 2015

Absent leave of the Court, all issues the parties wish to resolve on summary 

judgment must be raised together in one (1) motion. Should the parties wish to file 

additional motions for summary judgment, they must seek leave of the Court. 

 All purely legal issues are to be resolved by timely pretrial motions. When 

appropriate, failure to comply with Local Rules 230 and 260, as modified by this Order, 

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

Case 2:14-cv-01679-MCE-KJN Document 47 Filed 11/21/14 Page 3 of 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 

4

summarily. With respect to motions for summary judgment, failure to comply with Local 

Rules 230 and 260, as modified by this Order, may result in dismissal for failure to 

prosecute (or failure to defend) pursuant to this Court's inherent authority to control its 

docket and/or Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Further, failure to timely oppose a 

summary judgment motion2 may result in the granting of that motion if the movant shifts 

the burden to the nonmovant to demonstrate that a genuine issue of material fact 

remains for trial. 

 The Court places a page limit for points and authorities (exclusive of exhibits and 

other supporting documentation) of twenty (20) pages on all initial moving papers, twenty 

(20) pages on oppositions, and ten (10) pages for replies. All requests for page limit 

increases must be made in writing to the Court setting forth any and all reasons for any 

increase in page limit at least seven (7) days prior to the filing of the motion. 

 For the Court’s convenience, citations to the Supreme Court Lexis database 

should include parallel citations to the Westlaw database. 

 The parties are reminded that a motion in limine is a pretrial procedural device 

designed to address the admissibility of evidence. The Court will look with disfavor upon 

dispositional motions presented at the Final Pretrial Conference or at trial in the guise of 

motions in limine. 

 The parties are cautioned that failure to raise a dispositive legal issue that could 

have been tendered to the court by proper pretrial motion prior to the dispositive motion 

cut-off date may constitute waiver of such issue. 

IV. FURTHER PRETRIAL AND TRIAL PROCEEDINGS 

If necessary, after the motion(s) for summary judgment have been decided, an 

amended pretrial scheduling order will issue setting, among other things, dates for the 

final pretrial conference and for trial. 

/// 

 2

 The Court urges any party that contemplates bringing a motion for summary judgment or who 

must oppose a motion for summary judgment to review Local Rule 260. 

Case 2:14-cv-01679-MCE-KJN Document 47 Filed 11/21/14 Page 4 of 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 

5

V. MODIFICATION OF PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER 

 The parties are reminded that pursuant to Rule 16(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, the Pretrial Scheduling Order shall not be modified except by leave of court 

upon a showing of good cause. Agreement by the parties pursuant to stipulation alone 

to modify the Pretrial Scheduling Order does not constitute good cause. Except in 

extraordinary circumstances, unavailability of witnesses or counsel will not constitute 

good cause. 

VI. OBJECTIONS TO PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER 

 This Pretrial Scheduling Order will become final without further order of the Court 

unless objections are filed within seven (7) court days of service of this Order. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 Dated: November 20, 2014 

Case 2:14-cv-01679-MCE-KJN Document 47 Filed 11/21/14 Page 5 of 5