Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01436/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01436-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN DANIEL VILLA JR.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

LINDA ROWE, JENNIFER SWINEY,

and BHAWNA JAIN,

Defendants. /

No. C 07-01436 WHA

CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER

REFERENCE TO ADR UNIT FOR

EARLY NEUTRAL EVALUATION,

AND ORDER LIFTING STAY

After a case management conference, the Court enters the following order pursuant to

Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) and Civil Local Rule 16-10:

1. The stay in this case is hereby LIFTED. 

2. All initial disclosures under FRCP 26 must be completed by JUNE 10, 2010, on pain of

preclusion under FRCP 37(c). 

3. Leave to add any new parties or pleading amendments must be sought by

AUGUST 31, 2010. 

4. The non-expert discovery cut-off date shall be JANUARY 31, 2011. 

5. The last date for designation of expert testimony and disclosure of full expert reports

under FRCP 26(a)(2) as to any issue on which a party has the burden of proof

(“opening reports”) shall be JANUARY 31, 2011. Within FOURTEEN CALENDAR DAYS of

said deadline, all other parties must disclose any expert reports on the same issue

(“opposition reports”). Within SEVEN CALENDAR DAYS thereafter, the party with the

Case 3:07-cv-01436-WHA Document 36 Filed 05/05/10 Page 1 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

burden of proof must disclose any reply reports rebutting specific material in opposition

reports. Reply reports must be limited to true rebuttal and should be very brief. They

should not add new material that should have been placed in the opening report and the

reply material will ordinarily be reserved for the rebuttal or sur-rebuttal phase of the trial. 

If the party with the burden of proof neglects to make a timely disclosure, the other side,

if it wishes to put in expert evidence on the same issue anyway, must disclose its expert

report within the fourteen-day period. In that event, the party with the burden of proof on

the issue may then file a reply expert report within the seven-day period, subject to

possible exclusion for “sandbagging” and, at all events, any such reply material may be

presented at trial only after, if at all, the other side actually presents expert testimony to

which the reply is responsive. The cutoff for all expert discovery shall be

FOURTEEN CALENDAR DAYS after the deadline for reply reports. In aid of preparing an

opposition or reply report, a responding party may depose the adverse expert sufficiently

before the deadline for the opposition or reply report so as to use the testimony in

preparing the response. Experts must make themselves readily available for such

depositions. Alternatively, the responding party can elect to depose the expert later in the

expert-discovery period. An expert, however, may be deposed only once unless the

expert is used for different opening and/or opposition reports, in which case the expert

may be deposed independently on the subject matter of each report. At least

28 CALENDAR DAYS before the due date for opening reports, each party shall serve a list

of issues on which it will offer any expert testimony in its case-in-chief (including from

non-retained experts). This is so that all parties will be timely able to obtain

counter-experts on the listed issues and to facilitate the timely completeness of all expert

reports. Failure to so disclose may result in preclusion. 

6. As to damages studies, the cut-off date for past damages will be as of the expert report

(or such earlier date as the expert may select). In addition, the experts may try to project

future damages (i.e., after the cut-off date) if the substantive standards for future damages

Case 3:07-cv-01436-WHA Document 36 Filed 05/05/10 Page 2 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

can be met. With timely leave of Court or by written stipulation, the experts may update

their reports (with supplemental reports) to a date closer to the time of trial. 

7. At trial, the direct testimony of experts will be limited to the matters disclosed in their

reports. Omitted material may not ordinarily be added on direct examination. 

This means the reports must be complete and sufficiently detailed. 

Illustrative animations, diagrams, charts and models may be used on direct examination

only if they were part of the expert’s report, with the exception of simple drawings and

tabulations that plainly illustrate what is already in the report, which can be drawn by the

witness at trial or otherwise shown to the jury. If cross-examination fairly opens the

door, however, an expert may go beyond the written report on cross-examination and/or

redirect examination. By written stipulation, of course, all sides may relax these

requirements. 

8. To head off a recurring problem, experts lacking percipient knowledge should avoid

vouching for the credibility of witnesses, i.e., whose version of the facts in dispute is

correct. This means that they may not, for example, testify that based upon a review of

fact depositions and other material supplied by counsel, a police officer did (or did not)

violate standards. Rather, the expert should be asked for his or her opinion based —

explicitly — upon an assumed fact scenario. This will make clear that the witness is not

attempting to make credibility and fact findings and thereby to invade the province of the

jury. Of course, a qualified expert can testify to relevant customs, usages, practices,

recognized standards of conduct, and other specialized matters beyond the ken of a lay

jury. This subject is addressed further in the trial guidelines referenced in paragraph 16

below. 

9. Counsel need not request a motion hearing date and may notice non-discovery motions

for any Thursday (excepting holidays) at 8:00 a.m. The Court sometimes rules on the

papers, issuing a written order and vacating the hearing. If a written request for oral

argument is filed before a ruling, stating that a lawyer of four or fewer years out of law

school will conduct the oral argument or at least the lion’s share, then the Court will hear

Case 3:07-cv-01436-WHA Document 36 Filed 05/05/10 Page 3 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

oral argument, believing that young lawyers need more opportunities for appearances

than they usually receive. 

10. The last date to file dispositive motions shall be MARCH 3, 2011. No dispositive motions

shall be heard more than 35 days after this deadline, i.e., if any party waits until the last

day to file, then the parties must adhere to the 35-day track in order to avoid pressure on

the trial date. 

11. The FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE shall be at 2:00 P.M. on MAY 2, 2011. For the form

of submissions for the final pretrial conference and trial, please see paragraph 16 below. 

12. A JURY TRIAL shall begin on MAY 16, 2011, at 7:30 A.M., in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor,

450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California, 94102. The trial schedule and time

limits shall be set at the final pretrial conference. Although almost all trials proceed on

the date scheduled, it may be necessary on occasion for a case to trail, meaning the trial

may commence a few days or even a few weeks after the date stated above, due to

calendar congestion and the need to give priority to criminal trials. Counsel and the

parties should plan accordingly, including advising witnesses. 

13. Counsel may not stipulate around the foregoing dates without Court approval. 

14. While the Court encourages the parties to engage in settlement discussions, please do not

ask for any extensions on the ground of settlement discussions or on the ground that the

parties experienced delays in scheduling settlement conferences, mediation or ENE. The

parties should proceed to prepare their cases for trial. No continuance (even if stipulated)

shall be granted on the ground of incomplete preparation without competent and detailed

declarations setting forth good cause. 

15. To avoid any misunderstanding with respect to the final pretrial conference and trial, the

Court wishes to emphasize that all filings and appearances must be made — on pain of

dismissal, default or other sanction — unless and until a dismissal fully resolving the

case is received. It will not be enough to inform the clerk that a settlement in principle

has been reached or to lodge a partially executed settlement agreement or to lodge a fully

executed agreement (or dismissal) that resolves less than the entire case. 

Case 3:07-cv-01436-WHA Document 36 Filed 05/05/10 Page 4 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Where, however, a fully-executed settlement agreement clearly and fully disposing of the

entire case is lodged reasonably in advance of the pretrial conference or trial and only a

ministerial act remains, the Court will arrange a telephone conference to work out an

alternate procedure pending a formal dismissal. 

16. If you have not already done so, please read and follow the “Supplemental Order to

Order Setting Initial Case Management Conference in Civil Cases Before Judge William

Alsup” and other orders issued by the Clerk’s office when this action was commenced. 

Among other things, the supplemental order explains when submissions are to go to the

Clerk’s Office (the general rule) versus when submissions may go directly to chambers

(rarely). With respect to the final pretrial conference and trial, please read and follow the

“Guidelines For Trial and Final Pretrial Conference in Civil Jury Cases Before The

Honorable William Alsup.” All orders and guidelines referenced in the paragraph are

available on the district court’s website at http://www.cand.uscourts.gov. The website

also includes other guidelines for attorney’s fees motions and the necessary form of

attorney time records for cases before Judge Alsup. If you do not have access to the

Internet, you may contact Deputy Clerk Dawn K. Toland at (415) 522-2020 to learn how

to pick up a hard copy. 

17. All pretrial disclosures under FRCP 26(a)(3) and objections required by FRCP 26(a)(3)

must be made on the schedule established by said rule. 

18. This matter is hereby REFERRED to the ADR UNIT for EARLY NEUTRAL EVALUATION.

19. After the case is over, please fill out the appended “Suggestions Box” memo on an

anonymous basis and send to Judge William Alsup, United States District Court,

450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California 94102. Your constructive criticism

will be most appreciated. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 5, 2010. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:07-cv-01436-WHA Document 36 Filed 05/05/10 Page 5 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

SUGGESTIONS BOX

Judge Alsup invites views of any counsel or party on how to improve the

administration of justice in his courtroom. Please offer as much constructive criticism as you

wish. (If there is any practice you particularly wish to stay in place, such comments would

also be welcome.) Please do not identify yourself or your firm. Please comment on: 

1. Case management — 

2. Disclosure and discovery — 

3. Motion practice — 

4. Class actions and derivative actions — 

5. Trials — 

6. Fairness, bias, temperament, efficiency and demeanor — 

7. Is there anything else about our district court you would like to improve? 

Case 3:07-cv-01436-WHA Document 36 Filed 05/05/10 Page 6 of 6