Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00193/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00193-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Sex Discrimination

---

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

MELANIE GRACE SINGER,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL, JEFF

BAIRD, MARK McCORMACK, DANA

LEACH, AND DOES 1 THROUGH 30,

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:07-cv-0193 OWW SMS

SCHEDULING CONFERENCE ORDER 

Discovery Cut-Off: 5/19/08

Non-Dispositive Motion

Filing Deadline: 6/2/08

Dispositive Motion Filing

Deadline: 6/19/08

Settlement Conference Date:

6/17/08 10:00 Ctrm. 7

Pre-Trial Conference

Date: 8/25/08 11:00 Ctrm. 3

Trial Date: 10/7/08 9:00

Ctrm. 3 (JT-10 days)

I. Date of Scheduling Conference.

July 11, 2007.

II. Appearances Of Counsel.

Daniel S. Kodam, Esq., appeared on behalf of Plaintiff.

Ernesto J. Fong, Esq., Deputy Attorney General, appeared on

behalf of Defendants. 

III. Summary of Pleadings. 

1. Plaintiff asserts that the CHP by and through its

Case 1:07-cv-00193-OWW -SMS Document 21 Filed 07/16/07 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

management, Jeffrey Baird, Mark McCormack, and Dana Leach,

created a hostile work environment against her, discriminated

against her due to her gender, and unlawfully retaliated against

her when she complained about the hostile work environment and

discrimination.

2. Plaintiff seeks an award of compensatory damages,

punitive damages, interest, costs and attorney’s fees.

3. Defendants, CHP, Jeffrey Baird, Mark McCormack, and

Dana Leach, assert that they did not maintain or create a hostile

work environment for Plaintiff, nor did they engage in or allow

harassment, discrimination or unlawful retaliation against

Plaintiff. All the allegations raised in Plaintiff’s Amended

Complaint are either unfounded or insufficient to rise to the

level of discrimination, harassment, hostile work environment, or

unlawful retaliation. At all relevant times, Defendants followed

CHP policy and the same policy dictated each of Defendants’

actions toward Plaintiff.

4. Defendants also seek that judgment be entered in favor

of Defendants and against Plaintiff on the First Amended

Complaint and that Plaintiff take nothing by way of the First

Amended Complaint. Last, Defendants also seek that the First

Amended Complaint be dismissed in its entirety with prejudice,

and that Defendants be awarded the costs, expenses, and attorneys

fees incurred in this action.

IV. Orders Re Amendments To Pleadings.

1. At present the parties do not contemplate amending the

pleadings. 

///

Case 1:07-cv-00193-OWW -SMS Document 21 Filed 07/16/07 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

V. Factual Summary.

A. Admitted Facts Which Are Deemed Proven Without Further

Proceedings. 

1. Plaintiff, Melanie G. Singer, is an officer

employed by the California Highway Patrol (“CHP”) and a citizen

of the United States.

2. Plaintiff is a sworn peace officer under the laws

of the State of California.

3. Mrs. Singer is currently assigned to scale duty at

the Mojave Station in Kern County, California, State and Eastern

District of California.

4. Defendant CHP is a law enforcement agency of the

State of California. 

5. Defendant Dana E. Leach is a Lieutenant with the

CHP.

6. Defendants Jeffrey Baird and Mark A. McCormack are

Sergeants with the CHP.

7. At all times Defendants Leach, Baird and McCormack

were acting under color of state law and in the course and scope

of their public employment.

B. Contested Facts.

1. Defendants’ contention that they followed CHP

policy and investigated the matter are inaccurate. 

2. CHP policy does not allow for the creation of a

systematic hostile work environment or discrimination.

3. The investigation was only conducted after

Plaintiff filed her allegations in court.

4. No corrective action has been taken and if any has

Case 1:07-cv-00193-OWW -SMS Document 21 Filed 07/16/07 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

4

been taken, it was untimely.

5. Plaintiff was never assigned to the Cache Creek

Scale Facility.

6. She expressed interest in the assignment, but

there were no positions available. 

7. No supervisor ever prohibited Plaintiff from

calling the CHP office and Plaintiff’s two assigned equipment

lockers were left untouched while she was on her extended leaves

of absence.

8. At no time did CHP find evidence of sick leave

abuse at the Mojave office.

9. CHP also investigated Plaintiff’s complaints and

appropriate corrective action was taken when warranted.

10. In addition, Defendants followed CHP policy

whenever they interacted with Plaintiff regarding work related

matters.

11. Further, there was no bias from Defendants, or any

CHP personnel, in regard to their interactions with Plaintiff as

to work related matters.

12. Interim reporting was the appropriate corrective

measure regarding Plaintiff’s work performance.

13. Plaintiff’s perception of certain events and

actions taken by CHP do not coincide with the evidence in this

case.

14. Defendants have answered the First Amended

Complaint, denying and admitting various factual allegations, and

has asserted a variety of defenses. 

///

Case 1:07-cv-00193-OWW -SMS Document 21 Filed 07/16/07 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

5

VI. Legal Issues.

A. Uncontested.

1. Jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 42 

U.S.C. § 1983 et seq. 

2. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391.

3. As to supplemental claims, the parties agree that

the substantive law of the State of California provides the rule

of decision. 

B. Contested. 

1. Whether Defendants were following appropriate CHP

policy and procedures. 

2. Whether CHP policy and procedure is legal under

California and Federal law.

3. Whether CHP properly investigated Plaintiff’s

complaints.

4. Whether CHP took appropriate corrective action

when Plaintiff raised her complaints.

5. Whether CHP violated Plaintiff’s rights for

failure to seek an interview with counsel.

6. Whether Plaintiff exhausted her administrative

remedies as to all claims prior to filing suit.

7. Whether Plaintiff was harassed or subjected to a

hostile work environment.

8. Whether Plaintiff was subjected to adverse

employment action because of her participation in protected

activity.

9. Whether Defendants discriminated against Plaintiff

due to a protected class status.

Case 1:07-cv-00193-OWW -SMS Document 21 Filed 07/16/07 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

10. Whether Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the

applicable statute of limitations.

11. Whether Plaintiff can recover damages for

emotional distress.

12. The nature and extent of Plaintiff’s injuries and

damages.

13. Whether Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages.

VII. Consent to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction.

1. The parties have not consented to transfer the 

case to the Magistrate Judge for all purposes, including trial.

VIII. Corporate Identification Statement.

1. Any nongovernmental corporate party to any action in

this court shall file a statement identifying all its parent

corporations and listing any entity that owns 10% or more of the

party's equity securities. A party shall file the statement with

its initial pleading filed in this court and shall supplement the

statement within a reasonable time of any change in the

information. 

IX. Discovery Plan and Cut-Off Date.

1. The parties agree to make their initial disclosures by

October 11, 2007. 

2. The parties are ordered to complete all discovery on

or before May 19, 2008.

3. The parties are directed to disclose all expert

witnesses, in writing, on or before March 17, 2008. Any rebuttal

or supplemental expert disclosures will be made on or before

April 17, 2008. The parties will comply with the provisions of

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) regarding their expert

Case 1:07-cv-00193-OWW -SMS Document 21 Filed 07/16/07 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

7

designations. Local Rule 16-240(a) notwithstanding, the written

designation of experts shall be made pursuant to F. R. Civ. P.

Rule 26(a)(2), (A) and (B) and shall include all information

required thereunder. Failure to designate experts in compliance

with this order may result in the Court excluding the testimony

or other evidence offered through such experts that are not

disclosed pursuant to this order.

4. The provisions of F. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4) shall 

apply to all discovery relating to experts and their opinions. 

Experts may be fully prepared to be examined on all subjects and

opinions included in the designation. Failure to comply will

result in the imposition of sanctions. 

X. Pre-Trial Motion Schedule.

1. All Non-Dispositive Pre-Trial Motions, including any

discovery motions, will be filed on or before June 2, 2008, and

heard on July 11, 2008, at 9:00 a.m. before Magistrate Judge

Sandra M. Snyder in Courtroom 7. 

2. In scheduling such motions, the Magistrate

Judge may grant applications for an order shortening time

pursuant to Local Rule 142(d). However, if counsel does not

obtain an order shortening time, the notice of motion must comply

with Local Rule 251. 

3. All Dispositive Pre-Trial Motions are to be

filed no later than June 19, 2008, and will be heard on July 21,

2008, at 10:00 a.m. before the Honorable Oliver W. Wanger, United

States District Judge, in Courtroom 3, 7th Floor. In scheduling

such motions, counsel shall comply with Local Rule 230. 

///

Case 1:07-cv-00193-OWW -SMS Document 21 Filed 07/16/07 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

8

XI. Pre-Trial Conference Date.

1. August 25, 2008, at 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom 3, 7th

Floor, before the Honorable Oliver W. Wanger, United States

District Judge. 

2. The parties are ordered to file a Joint PreTrial Statement pursuant to Local Rule 281(a)(2). 

3. Counsel's 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.

XII. Trial Date.

1. October 7, 2008, at the hour of 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom

3, 7th Floor, before the Honorable Oliver W. Wanger, United

States District Judge. 

2. This is a jury trial.

3. Counsels' Estimate Of Trial Time:

a. 10 days.

4. Counsels' attention is directed to Local Rules

of Practice for the Eastern District of California, Rule 285. 

XIII. Settlement Conference.

1. A Settlement Conference is scheduled for June 17, 2008,

at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 7 before the Honorable Sandra M.

Snyder, United States Magistrate Judge. 

2. Unless otherwise permitted in advance by the

Court, the attorneys who will try the case shall appear at the

Settlement Conference with the parties and the person or persons

having full authority to negotiate and settle the case on any

Case 1:07-cv-00193-OWW -SMS Document 21 Filed 07/16/07 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

9

terms at the conference. 

3. Permission for a party [not attorney] to attend

by telephone may be granted upon request, by letter, with a copy

to the other parties, if the party [not attorney] lives and works

outside the Eastern District of California, and attendance in

person would constitute a hardship. If telephone attendance is

allowed, the party must be immediately available throughout the

conference until excused regardless of time zone differences. 

Any other special arrangements desired in cases where settlement

authority rests with a governing body, shall also be proposed in

advance by letter copied to all other parties. 

4. Confidential Settlement Conference Statement. 

At least five (5) days prior to the Settlement Conference the

parties shall submit, directly to the Magistrate Judge's

chambers, a confidential settlement conference statement. The

statement should not be filed with the Clerk of the Court nor

served on any other party. Each statement shall be clearly

marked "confidential" with the date and time of the Settlement

Conference indicated prominently thereon. Counsel are urged to

request the return of their statements if settlement is not

achieved and if such a request is not made the Court will dispose

of the statement.

5. The Confidential Settlement Conference

Statement shall include the following: 

a. A brief statement of the facts of the 

case.

b. A brief statement of the claims and 

defenses, i.e., statutory or other grounds upon which the claims

Case 1:07-cv-00193-OWW -SMS Document 21 Filed 07/16/07 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

are founded; a forthright evaluation of the parties' likelihood

of prevailing on the claims and defenses; and a description of

the major issues in dispute.

c. A summary of the proceedings to date.

d. An estimate of the cost and time to be

expended for further discovery, pre-trial and trial.

e. The relief sought.

f. The parties' position on settlement,

including present demands and offers and a history of past

settlement discussions, offers and demands. 

XIV. Request For Bifurcation, Appointment Of Special Master, 

Or Other Techniques To Shorten Trial. 

1. The parties agree that the issue of the amount of

punitive damages shall be tried in a second phase in a continuous

trial before the same jury. 

XV. Related Matters Pending.

1. There are no related matters.

XVI. Compliance With Federal Procedure.

1. The Court requires compliance with the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of Practice for the

Eastern District of California. To aid the court in the

efficient administration of this case, all counsel are directed

to familiarize themselves with the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure and the Local Rules of Practice of the Eastern District

of California, and keep abreast of any amendments thereto.

XVII. Effect Of This Order.

1. The foregoing order represents the best

estimate of the court and counsel as to the agenda most suitable

Case 1:07-cv-00193-OWW -SMS Document 21 Filed 07/16/07 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

to bring this case to resolution. 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 scheduling conference. 

2. 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. 

3. Failure to comply with this order may result in

the imposition of sanctions. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 11, 2007 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00193-OWW -SMS Document 21 Filed 07/16/07 Page 11 of 11