Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00121/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00121-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BERTRAM L. CLARKE, )

) CIV. S-05-121 GEB KJM

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) STATUS (PRETRIAL

) SCHEDULING) ORDER

THE HON. HERSHEL GOBER, ) AND ORDER IMPOSING

ACTING SECRETARY OF VETERANS ) SANCTIONS

AFFAIRS, )

)

Defendant. )

)

READ THIS ORDER CAREFULLY. IT CONTAINS IMPORTANT DATES

WHICH THE COURT WILL STRICTLY ENFORCE AND WITH WHICH ALL COUNSEL

AND PARTIES MUST COMPLY. A FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE TERMS OF

THIS ORDER MAY RESULT IN THE IMPOSITION OF MONETARY AND ALL OTHER

SANCTIONS WITHIN THE POWER OF THE COURT, INCLUDING DISMISSAL OR AN

ORDER OF JUDGMENT.

The status (pretrial scheduling) conference scheduled in

this case for June 20, 2005, is vacated since the joint status

report submitted by the parties obviates the need for the

conference. The following order issues based on the parties’ joint

status report and available dates.

Case 2:05-cv-00121-GEB -KJM Document 10 Filed 06/14/05 Page 1 of 11
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

SANCTIONS

On June 3, 2005, Plaintiff’s counsel filed a response to

the Order to Show Cause issued against Plaintiff and his counsel on

March 30, 2005 (“OSC Response”). In the OSC Response counsel

states a timely status report was not filed “Due to [counsel’s]

then lack of service,” and because he “overlooked the requirement

of this Court fo file a status report.” The status of service of

process does not excuse Plaintiff’s failure to file a timely status

report because the Order Setting Status (Pretrial Scheduling)

Conference filed January 20, 2005, prescribed:

The failure of one or more of the parties to

participate in the preparation of the Joint

Status Report does not excuse the other parties

from their obligation to timely file a status

report in accordance with this Order. In the

event a party fails to participate as ordered,

the party timely submitting the status report

shall include a declaration explaining why it

was unable to obtain the cooperation of the

other party or parties.

(Jan. 20, 2005, Order at 2 n.2.)

Further, counsel’s statement that he “overlooked” the

requirement to file the status report is insufficient reason to

avoid sanctions. It is “the professional duty of the attorney of

record to ensure . . . that [counsel complies with Rule 16 filing

deadlines].” Dela Rosa v. Scottsdale Mem'l Health Sys., Inc., 136

F.3d 1241, 1244 (9th Cir. 1998). Clearly judges should be expected

to take action when Rule 16 filing deadlines are missed --

otherwise, a deadline ceases to be meaningful and simply serves as

a useless goal to be considered by counsel when filing court

documents. See Ayers v. City of Richmond, 895 F.2d 1267, 1270 (9th

Cir. 1990) (affirming sanctions imposed on lawyer where "the date

slipped by him") (internal quotation marks omitted). Ensuring that

Case 2:05-cv-00121-GEB -KJM Document 10 Filed 06/14/05 Page 2 of 11
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

a consequence exists for an unexcused tardily-filed document tends

to preserve the integrity of the Court's docket. "[W]e are dealing

with [a] matter critical to the court itself: management of its

docket, and the avoidance of unnecessary [delays in court

proceedings and the issuance of OSCs concerning why a document was

not filed on time]." Matter of Sanction of Baker, 744 F.2d 1438,

1441 (10th Cir. 1984). 

[The] trial judge has an independent

responsibility to enforce the directives he has

laid down for the case. . . . "Rules are rules

– and the parties must play by them. In the

final analysis, the judicial process depends

heavily on the judge’s credibility. To ensure

such credibility, a district judge must often

be firm in managing crowded dockets and

demanding adherence to announced deadlines. If

he or she sets a reasonable due date, parties

should not be allowed casually to flout it or

painlessly to escape the foreseeable

consequences of noncompliance."

Legault v. Zambarano, 105 F.3d 24, 28-29 (1st Cir. 1997) (quoting

Mendez v. Banco Popular de Puerto Rico, 900 F.2d 4, 7 (1st Cir.

1990)); Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 610

(9th Cir. 1992) ("A scheduling order 'is not a frivolous piece of

paper, idly entered, which can be cavalierly disregarded by counsel

without peril.' . . . Disregard of the order would undermine the

court's ability to control its docket . . . and reward the indolent

and the cavalier."). 

Since Plaintiff’s response is insufficient to avoid

imposition of sanctions, George R. Kucera is sanctioned ONE HUNDRED

FIFTY DOLLARS ($150.00) for HIS failure to timely comply with the

January 20, 2005, Order. The sanctions shall be paid to the Clerk

of the Court of this District within fifteen (15) days from the

date this Order is filed. Proof of payment must be sent to the

Case 2:05-cv-00121-GEB -KJM Document 10 Filed 06/14/05 Page 3 of 11
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 The parties are advised that the Magistrate Judges in the

Eastern District are responsible for resolving discovery disputes. See

Local Rule 72-302(c)(1). Accordingly, counsel shall direct all

discovery-related matters to the Magistrate Judge assigned to this case.

A party conducting discovery near the discovery "completion" date runs

the risk of losing the opportunity to have a jurist resolve discovery

motions pursuant to the Local Rules.

4

undersigned Judge's chambers within five (5) days of payment. The

sanction is personal to the attorney and is not to be transmitted

to his client by way of a charge or attorney's fees and/or costs.

SERVICE OF PROCESS

The named defendant has been served and no further

service is permitted, except with leave of Court, good cause having

been shown.

JOINDER OF ADDITIONAL PARTIES/AMENDMENT

No further joinder of parties or amendments to pleadings

is permitted except with leave of Court, good cause having been

shown. 

DISCOVERY

(a) All discovery shall be completed by March 10, 2006.

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 orders, if necessary, and, where discovery has been

ordered, the order has been complied with or, alternatively, the

time allowed for such compliance shall have expired.1

(b) Each party shall comply with Federal Rule of Civil

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

requirements on or before October 11, 2005, and with the rebuttal

Case 2:05-cv-00121-GEB -KJM Document 10 Filed 06/14/05 Page 4 of 11
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 This time deadline does not apply to motions for continuances,

temporary restraining orders, emergency applications, or motions under

Rule 16(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

5

expert disclosures authorized under the Rule on or before

November 14, 2005.

MOTION HEARING SCHEDULE

The last hearing date for motions shall be May 22, 2006,

at 9:00 a.m.2

All purely legal issues are to be resolved by timely

pretrial motions. Motions shall be filed in accordance with Local

Rule 78-230(b). Opposition papers shall be filed in accordance

with Local Rule 78-230(c). Failure to comply with this local rule

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

the motion summarily. Brydges v. Lewis, 18 F.3d 651, 652-53 (9th

Cir. 1994). Further, failure to timely oppose a summary judgment

motion may result in the granting of that motion if the movant

shifts the burden to the nonmovant to demonstrate a genuine issue

of material fact remains for trial. Cf. Marshall v. Gates, 44 F.3d

722 (9th Cir. 1995). When the last day for filing an opposition

brief falls on a legal holiday, the opposition brief shall be filed

on the next court day immediately following the legal holiday. See

Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a). 

Any party bringing a motion to dismiss, motion for

summary judgment or summary adjudication, motion for judgment on

the pleadings, or motion to remand shall attach to the motion a

copy of the latest complaint (or cross-complaint where applicable).

 In determining any motion for summary judgment, the Court

will assume that the material facts as claimed in the movant's

Case 2:05-cv-00121-GEB -KJM Document 10 Filed 06/14/05 Page 5 of 11
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

Statement of Undisputed Facts and adequately supported by evidence

are admitted without controversy except to the extent that such

material facts are (1) disputed in the nonmovant's response to the

movant's "Statement of Undisputed Facts," and (2) controverted by

declaration or other written evidence filed in opposition to the

motion. See L.R. 56-260(b); Nilsson, Robbin, et al., v. Louisiana

Hydrolec, 854 F.2d 1538, 1545 (9th Cir. 1988). A party opposing a

motion for summary judgment must serve upon all parties and file

with the Clerk of Court the evidence upon which the opposing party

will rely in opposition to the motion fourteen days before the

scheduled hearing date. L.R. 78-230(c), 56-260. Evidence not

timely filed by a party will not be considered. See Marshall v.

Gates, 44 F.3d at 725. 

Absent highly unusual circumstances, reconsideration of a

motion is appropriate only where:

(1) The Court is presented with newly discovered

evidence that could not have reasonably been discovered prior to

the filing of the party's motion or opposition papers;

(2) The Court committed clear error or the initial

decision was manifestly unjust; or

(3) There is an intervening change in controlling law.

A motion for reconsideration based on newly discovered evidence

shall set forth, in detail, the reason why said evidence could not

have reasonably been discovered prior to the filing of the party's

motion or opposition papers. Motions for reconsideration shall

comply with Local Rule 78-230(k) in all other respects.

The parties are reminded that motions in limine are

procedural devices designed to address the admissibility of

Case 2:05-cv-00121-GEB -KJM Document 10 Filed 06/14/05 Page 6 of 11
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 Such motions include contentions under the collateral estoppel

or res judicata doctrines.

4 The failure of one or more of the parties to participate in

the preparation of any joint document required to be filed in this case

(continued...)

7

evidence and are cautioned that the Court will look with disfavor

upon motions3 presented at the final pretrial conference or at

trial in the guise of motions in limine. The parties are further

cautioned that if any legal issue which should have been tendered

to the Court by proper pretrial motion requires resolution by the

Court after the established law and motion cut-off date,

substantial sanctions may be assessed for the failure to file the

appropriate pretrial motion and/or the Court may elect not to

decide the motion and to treat it as untimely. See U.S. Dominator,

Inc. v. Factory Ship Robert E. Resoff, 768 F.2d 1099, 1104 (9th

Cir. 1985) (affirming district court's denial of untimely motion

since "pretrial order controls the subsequent course of action

unless modified by a subsequent order"), rejected on other grounds,

Simpson v. Lear Astronics Corp., 77 F.3d 1170, 1174 (9th Cir.

1995); Dedge v. Kendrick, 849 F.2d 1398 (11th Cir. 1988) (same). 

 FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE

The final pretrial conference is set for July 24, 2006,

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 with

the Court not later than seven (7) days prior to the final pretrial

conference.4 The Court uses the parties' joint pretrial statement

Case 2:05-cv-00121-GEB -KJM Document 10 Filed 06/14/05 Page 7 of 11
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(...continued)

does not excuse the other parties from their obligation to timely file

the document in accordance with this Order. In the event a party fails

to participate as ordered, the party timely submitting the document

shall include a declaration explaining why it was unable to obtain the

cooperation of the other party or parties.

5 In this section of the joint pretrial statement the parties

must specify what the judge is expected to decide and what the jury is

expected to decide. For instance, if the judge is expected to make a

ruling after the jury decides factual disputes, the factual issues to be

submitted to the jury shall be specified.

6 In separate attachments to the joint pretrial statement each

party shall list all witnesses and each exhibit individually that the

party intends to offer at trial. Plaintiff’s exhibits shall be listed

numerically; defendant’s exhibits shall be listed alphabetically.

7 If there are no legal or equitable contentions, the title

shall reflect only what is at issue. The requirement in (b)(8) is

modified since a party only needs to state sufficient law to show

viability of an issue. But it must be clear whether precise federal or

state law governs. If state law governs, the state whose law is

(continued...)

8

to prepare its final pretrial order. The final pretrial order

supersedes the pleadings and controls the facts and issues which

may be presented at trial. Issues asserted in pleadings which are

not preserved for trial in the final pretrial order cannot be

raised at trial. Hotel Emp., et al. Health Tr. v. Elks Lodge 1450,

827 F.2d 1324, 1329 (9th Cir. 1987) (“Issues not preserved in the

pretrial order are eliminated from the action.”). 

The following provisions of Local Rule 16-281 shall apply

with respect to the matters to be included in the joint pretrial

statement: (b)(1), (b)(2),5 (b)(3), (b)(5), (b)(9), (b)(10),

(b)(11),6 (b)(12) to and including (b)(21), and (c). 

The subject matter in Local Rule 16-281(b)(4), (b)(7),

and (b)(8) shall be combined in a single section titled “Factual,

Legal and/or Equitable Contentions.”7 In the “Factual, Legal

Case 2:05-cv-00121-GEB -KJM Document 10 Filed 06/14/05 Page 8 of 11
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(...continued)

applicable must be specified. Since the governing law is stated in

conjunction with the elemental facts to establish a pled claim or

defense, there is no need for a separate statement of disputed factual

issues required by (b)(4). The relief sought, referenced in (b)(7),

shall follow the issue or issues giving rise to that relief. 

9

and/or Equitable Contentions” section, the parties shall number or

alphabetize each individually-pled cause of action and pled

affirmative defense to preserve the issue for trial. Each pled

claim or affirmative defense must be accompanied by the elemental

facts supporting it and the relief sought, if applicable. For 

example: Plaintiff claims that Defendant violated her Fourth

Amendment right to be free from excessive force by applying the

handcuffs too tight and seeks general damages. If the parties

disagree about the inclusion of an issue in this section, that

issue shall be followed by the title “Controversy”, under which the

parties’ respective positions on the issue shall be stated. The

parties are warned that the “Factual, Legal and/or Equitable

Contentions” section of the joint pretrial statement could be used

to specify the issues preserved for trial in the pretrial order,

and that order could issue without the court 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.”). Thus, if an issue is omitted from this

section of the joint pretrial statement, it is waived, even if it

appears in the pleadings. Valley Ranch Dev. Co. v. F.D.I.C., 960

F.2d 550, 554 (5th Cir. 1992) (indicating that an issue omitted

from the pretrial order is waived, even if it appeared in the

pleading); cf. Raney v. District of Columbia, 892 F. Supp. 283

(D.D.C. 1995) (refusing to modify the pretrial order to allow

Case 2:05-cv-00121-GEB -KJM Document 10 Filed 06/14/05 Page 9 of 11
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

10

assertion of a previously-pled statute of limitations defense);

Olympia Co., Inc. v. Celotex Corp., 597 F. Supp. 285, 289 (E.D. La.

1984) (indicating that “[a]ny factual contention, legal contention,

any claim for relief or defense in whole or in part, or affirmative

matter not set forth in [the pretrial statement] shall be deemed .

. . withdrawn, notwithstanding the contentions of any pleadings or

other papers previously filed [in the action]”). 

The parties are further warned that “since [the] process

[of having them delineate trial issues] is designed to promote

efficiency and conserve judicial resources, ‘there is no reason to

require that the elimination of non-trialworthy claims await a

formal motion for summary judgment.’” Berkovitz v. Home Box

Office, Inc., 89 F.3d 24, 29 (1st Cir. 1996). "If the pretrial

[statement] discloses that no material facts are in dispute and

that the undisputed facts entitle one of the parties to judgment as

a matter of law," the Court may summarily dispose of the case or

issue. Portsmouth Square v. Shareholders Protective Comm., 770

F.2d 866, 868-69 (9th Cir. 1985) (emphasis added). 

If possible, 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.

SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE

No settlement conference is currently scheduled. The

parties shall address in their joint pretrial statement whether

they wish to have a judge-assisted settlement conference. If

counsel wish the trial judge to act as settlement judge, written

stipulations to this effect which waive the judge's

disqualification from later acting as the trial judge must be filed

Case 2:05-cv-00121-GEB -KJM Document 10 Filed 06/14/05 Page 10 of 11
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

11

prior to the scheduling of the settlement conference. See Local

Rule 16-270(b). If the parties wish to participate in Courtassisted settlement prior to the final pretrial conference, they

should contact the Deputy Clerk.

TRIAL SETTING

Trial is set for October 31, 2006, commencing at

9:00 a.m. 

MISCELLANEOUS

The parties are reminded that pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.

16(b), the Status (pretrial scheduling) Order shall not be modified

except by leave of Court upon a showing of good cause. Counsel are

cautioned that a mere stipulation by itself to change dates does

not constitute good cause. 

OBJECTIONS TO STATUS (PRETRIAL SCHEDULING) ORDER

Any party may, within ten (10) court days after the date

this Order is filed, file and serve written objections to any part

of this Order. Any objection must specify the requested

correction, addition, and/or deletion. Any response to an

objection must be filed and served within ten (10) court days after

the objection is filed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 13, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-00121-GEB -KJM Document 10 Filed 06/14/05 Page 11 of 11