Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01344/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01344-13/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

---

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

On January 3, 2017, the parties filed a Joint Status Report following the remand from the Ninth 

Circuit. On January 9, 2017, the Court held a further scheduling conference with the parties, which 

agreed to comply with the following deadlines for the remainder of the action.

I. Briefing

As noted by the parties, the Ninth Circuit remanded the matter “to proceed to trial on the issue 

of whether MTC unreasonably failed to undertake actions to reduce the inmates’ risk of infection.” 

BRUCE DWIGHT SUTTON,

 Plaintiff,

v.

MANAGEMENT & TRAINING 

CORPORATION,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1: 13-CV-01344-AWI - JLT

FURTHER SCHEDULING ORDER

Briefing related to MTC’s duties:

 Filing deadline: 2/24/2017

 Response deadline: 3/17/2017

Expert Discovery Deadline: 3/13/2017

Non-Dispositive Motion Deadlines:

Filing: 3/27/2017

Hearing: 4/24/2017

Pre-Trial Conference:

6/28/2017 at 10:00 a.m.

Courtroom 2

Trial: 9/26/2017 at 8:30 a.m.

 Courtroom 2

 Jury trial: 3-5 days

Case 1:13-cv-01344-AWI-JLT Document 86 Filed 01/10/17 Page 1 of 4
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

(Doc. 75 at 4) In addition, the Court was “instructed to determine whether there is a genuine issue of 

material fact as to whether MTC breached its duty to warn as a possessor of land.” (Id.) The parties 

SHALL file briefing on this issue no later than February 24, 2017. Any briefs in reply SHALL be 

filed no later than March 17, 2017.

II. Expert Discovery

The parties have already disclosed experts but have not yet conducted expert discovery. They 

SHALL complete all discovery related to experts no later than March 13, 2017.

III. Pre-Trial Motion Schedule

The parties have agreed to continue expert discovery. Any non-dispositive pre-trial motions 

related to the expert discovery shall be filed no later than March 27, 2017, and heard on or before 

April 24, 2017. Non-dispositive motions are heard 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. 

No written motions related to the expert discovery 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 the issues in dispute. If that good faith effort is unsuccessful, the 

party shall seek a telephonic hearing with all involved parties and the Magistrate Judge, by contacting 

the 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 respect to discovery disputes or the motion will be 

denied without prejudice and dropped from calendar.

Counsel may appear and argue non-dispositive motions via CourtCall, providing a written 

request to so appear is made to the Magistrate Judge's Courtroom Clerk no later than five court days 

before the noticed hearing date. 

IV. Pre-Trial Conference Date

June 28, 2017, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 2 before Judge Ishii.

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 Ishii's chambers, by email at AWIOrders@caed.uscourts.gov. 

Case 1:13-cv-01344-AWI-JLT Document 86 Filed 01/10/17 Page 2 of 4
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

Counsels' 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. 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.

V. Trial Date

September 26, 2017, at 8:30 a.m. in Courtroom 2 before the Honorable Anthony W. Ishii, 

United States District Court Judge.

A. This is a jury trial.

B. Counsels' Estimate of Trial Time: 3-5 days. 

C. Counsels' attention is directed to Local Rules of Practice for the Eastern District of 

California, Rule 285.

VI. Settlement Conference

If the parties believe the action is in a settlement posture and a conference with the Court would 

be fruitful, they may file a joint written request for a settlement conference, proposing dates with at 

least thirty days’ notice. At that time, notwithstanding the requirements of Local Rule 270(b), the 

settlement conference will be conducted by Magistrate Judge Thurston. The Court deems the deviation 

from the Local Rule to be appropriate and in the interests of the parties and justice and sound case 

management based upon the location of the parties. If any party prefers that the settlement 

conference be conducted by a different judicial officer, that party is directed to notify the Court 

no later than 60 days in advance of the scheduled settlement conference to allow sufficient time for 

another judicial officer to be assigned to handle the conference. 

VII. 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. 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 

Case 1:13-cv-01344-AWI-JLT Document 86 Filed 01/10/17 Page 3 of 4
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

showing of good cause even if the request to modify is made by stipulation. Failure to comply with 

this order may result in the imposition of sanctions. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 10, 2017 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01344-AWI-JLT Document 86 Filed 01/10/17 Page 4 of 4