Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01740/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01740-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 448
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights - Education
Cause of Action: 20:1400 Civil Rights of Handicapped Child

---

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

I. Date of Scheduling Conference

February 23, 2016.

II. Appearances of Counsel

Andrea Marcus appeared on behalf of Plaintiff.

N.G. (a minor, by and through her parent 

and guardian ad litem, J.G.),

 Plaintiff,

v.

TEHACHAPI UNIFIED SCHOOL 

DISTRICT, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1: 15-CV-01740 LJO JLT

SCHEDULING ORDER (Fed. R. Civ. P. 16)

Pleading Amendment Deadline: 11/1/2016

Administrative Record Deadlines:

 Filing: 4/25/2016

 Objections to record: 5/10/2016

Briefs re: Discovery

Plaintiff’s Brief: 5/25/2016

Defendant’s Brief: 6/24/2016

Plaintiff’s Reply:7/5/2016

Non-Dispositive Motion Deadlines:

Filing: 11/7/2016

Hearing: 12/5/2016 

Appeal from Administrative Decision:

 Plaintiff’s Brief: 12/19/2016

 Defendant’s response: 1/16/2017

 Reply brief: 1/30/2017

 Bench Trial: 3/27/2017 in Courtroom 4

Case 1:15-cv-01740-LJO-JLT Document 11 Filed 03/10/16 Page 1 of 5
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

Darren Bogie, appeared on behalf of Defendants.

III. Magistrate Judge Consent: 

Notice of Congested Docket and Court Policy of Trailing

Due to the District Judges’ heavy caseload, the newly adopted policy of the Fresno Division of 

the Eastern District is to trail all civil cases. The parties are hereby notified that for a trial date set 

before a District Judge, the parties will trail indefinitely behind any higher priority criminal or older 

civil case set on the same date until a courtroom becomes available. The trial date will not be reset to a 

continued date.

The Magistrate Judges’ availability is far more realistic and accommodating to parties than that 

of the U.S. District Judges who carry the heaviest caseloads in the nation and who must prioritize 

criminal and older civil cases over more recently filed civil cases. A United States Magistrate Judge 

may conduct trials, including entry of final judgment, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 73, and Local Rule 305. Any appeal from a judgment entered by a United States 

Magistrate Judge is taken directly to the United States Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit. 

The Fresno Division of the Eastern District of California, whenever possible, is utilizing United 

States Article III District Court Judges from throughout the nation as Visiting Judges. Pursuant to the 

Local Rules, Appendix A, such reassignments will be random, and the parties will receive no advance 

notice before their case is reassigned to an Article III District Court Judge from outside of the Eastern 

District of California. 

Therefore, the parties are directed to consider consenting to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction to 

conduct all further proceedings, including trial. Within 10 days of the date of this order, counsel 

SHALL file a consent/decline form (provided by the Court at the inception of this case) indicating 

whether they will consent to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge.

IV. Pleading Amendment Deadline

Any requested pleading amendments are ordered to be filed, either through a stipulation or 

motion to amend, no later than November 1, 2016.

V. Administrative Record

Plaintiff SHALL file the administrative record no later than April 25, 2016. Plaintiff need not 

Case 1:15-cv-01740-LJO-JLT Document 11 Filed 03/10/16 Page 2 of 5
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

provide a courtesy paper copy but SHALL provide a searchable electronic copy to the chambers of 

Judge O’Neill. Objections to the record SHALL be filed no later than May 10, 2016.

If there is a dispute over the contents of the administrative record, the objecting party SHALL

confer with the opposing party in a good faith effort to resolve the issues in dispute. If that good faith 

effort is unsuccessful, the objecting party SHALL promptly seek a telephonic hearing with all involved

parties and the Magistrate Judge. It is the obligation of the objecting party to arrange and originate the 

conference call to the Court. To schedule this telephonic hearing, the parties are ordered to contact 

Courtroom Deputy Clerk, Susan Hall at (661) 326-6620 or via email at SHall@caed.uscourts.gov. 

VI. Discovery 

The parties disagree whether discovery should be allowed. They agree to brief the issue. The 

briefs filed at this time also may seek augmentation of the record. 

Plaintiff’s brief seeking discovery and/or motion to augment the record SHALL be filed no 

later than May 25, 2016. The brief SHALL set forth with precision the discovery sought and why 

discovery of this sort should be permitted. It must be supported by pertinent legal authority.

Defendant’s brief opposing discovery and/or motion to augment the record SHALL be filed no 

later than June 24, 2016. Plaintiff’s optional reply/opposition to motion to augment the record, if any, 

SHALL be filed no later than July 5, 2016.

VII. Pre-Trial Motion Schedule

A. Non-dispositive motions

All non-dispositive pre-trial motions, including any motions to augment the record1, shall be 

filed no later than November 7, 2016, and heard on or before December 5, 2016. Non-dispositive 

motions are heard before the Honorable Jennifer L. Thurston, United States Magistrate Judge at the 

United States Courthouse in Bakersfield, California.

No written motions 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 by agreement the issues in dispute. If that good faith effort is unsuccessful, the moving party 

 

1 The parties may file their motion to augment the record either along with the briefing related to whether discovery 

should be allowed or by the dates set forth here.

Case 1:15-cv-01740-LJO-JLT Document 11 Filed 03/10/16 Page 3 of 5
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

promptly shall seek a telephonic hearing with all involved parties and the Magistrate Judge. It shall be 

the obligation of the moving party to arrange and originate the conference call to the court. To 

schedule this telephonic hearing, the parties are ordered to contact 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.

In scheduling such motions, the Magistrate Judge may grant applications for an order shortening 

time pursuant to Local Rule 144(e). However, if counsel does not obtain an order shortening time, the 

notice of motion must comply with Local Rule 251. Counsel may appear and argue non-dispositive 

motions via CourtCall.

B. Merits briefing

Plaintiff’s brief on the merits SHALL be filed no later than December 19, 2016 and 

Defendant’s opposing brief SHALL be filed no later than January 16, 2017. Plaintiff’s reply, if any, 

SHALL be filed no later than January 30, 2017. 

X. Trial/Hearing Date

March 27, 2017 at 8:30 a.m. in Courtroom 4 before the Honorable Lawrence J. O'Neill, United 

States District Court Judge.

A. This is a Court trial.

B. Counsels’ Estimate of Trial Time: 2-3 days. 

C. Counsel SHALL file a joint trial/hearing status statement no later than February 20, 

2017 indicating whether either party intends to present live testimony. 

D. Counsels’ attention is directed to Local Rules of Practice for the Eastern District of 

California, Rule 285.

XIV. Compliance with Federal Procedure

All counsel are expected to familiarize themselves with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 

and the Local Rules of Practice of the Eastern District of California, and to keep abreast of any 

amendments thereto. The Court must insist upon compliance with these Rules if it is to efficiently 

handle its increasing case load and sanctions will be imposed for failure to follow the Rules as provided 

Case 1:15-cv-01740-LJO-JLT Document 11 Filed 03/10/16 Page 4 of 5
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

in both the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of Practice for the Eastern District of 

California.

XV. 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. 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 status conference.

The dates set in this Order are considered to be firm and will not be modified absent a 

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

Failure to comply with this order may result in the imposition of sanctions. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 10, 2016 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01740-LJO-JLT Document 11 Filed 03/10/16 Page 5 of 5