Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-01275/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-01275-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

JAMES EDWARD WALLACE,

Plaintiff,

v.

DEVIN COSPER, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:21-cv-01275-ADA-EPG

ORDER SETTING MANDATORY 

SCHEDULING CONFERENCE

DATE: September 7, 2023

TIME: 10 a.m.

CRTRM: 10

ERICA P. GROSJEAN

U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Rule 16(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Fed. R. Civ. P.”) requires the 

Court to enter a Scheduling Conference Order within 90 days after any defendant has been 

served, or 60 days after any defendant has appeared.1 Therefore, it is ordered that all parties 

attend a formal Scheduling Conference before United States Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean, 

in Courtroom 10 on September 7, 2023, at 10 a.m., at the United States Courthouse, 2500 Tulare 

Street, Fresno, CA 93721.

Appearance at Scheduling Conference

Attendance at the Scheduling Conference is mandatory for all parties. Parties, if 

represented, may appear by their counsel. The parties are permitted to appear telephonically and 

may do so by dialing 1-888-251-2909 and entering access code 1024453. Alternatively, parties 

and counsel may appear in person. If one or more parties wish to appear in person, they shall 

1 This order will refer to the parties in the singular regardless of the number of parties listed in the complaint.

Case 1:21-cv-01275-KES-EPG Document 52 Filed 07/26/23 Page 1 of 6
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

email Michelle Rooney, Courtroom Deputy Clerk, at mrooney@caed.uscourts.gov at least 24 

hours before the conference so that a notation can be placed on the Court’s calendar.

Joint Scheduling Report

A Joint Scheduling Report, carefully prepared and executed by all parties, shall be 

electronically filed in CM/ECF, at least seven (7) days prior to the Mandatory Scheduling 

Conference. The Joint Scheduling Report shall indicate the date, time, and courtroom of the 

Scheduling Conference. This information is to be placed opposite the caption on the first page of 

the Report. 

At least twenty (20) days prior to the Mandatory Scheduling Conference, all parties shall 

conduct a conference at a mutually agreed upon time and place. This should preferably be a 

personal conference, but a telephonic conference call involving all counsel/pro se parties is 

permissible. The Joint Scheduling Report shall contain the following items by corresponding 

numbered paragraphs:

1. Summary of the factual and legal contentions set forth in the pleadings of each party, 

including the relief sought by any party presently before the Court.

2. Summary of major disputed facts and contentions of law.

3. The status of all matters which are presently set before the Court, e.g., hearings of 

motions, etc.

4. A complete and detailed discovery plan addressing the following issues and proposed 

dates:

a. A date for the exchange of initial disclosures required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) 

or a statement that disclosures have already been exchanged;

b. A firm cut-off date for non-expert discovery. When setting this date, the parties are 

advised that motions to compel must be filed and heard sufficiently in advance of 

the deadlines so that the Court may grant effective relief within the allotted 

discovery time. The Court recommends this date be scheduled approximately nine 

(9) months from the scheduling conference;

c. A date for a mid-status discovery conference that should be scheduled 

approximately six (6) months after the scheduling conference, or two (2) months 

Case 1:21-cv-01275-KES-EPG Document 52 Filed 07/26/23 Page 2 of 6
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

before the non-expert discovery deadline, whichever is earliest;

d. A firm date for disclosure of expert witnesses, required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2), 

rebuttal experts, as well as cut-off for the completion of all expert discovery. The 

parties shall allow thirty (30) days between each of the expert discovery deadlines;

e. Any proposed changes in the limits on discovery imposed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b); 

30(a)(2)(A), (B); 30(d); or 33(a);

f. Whether the parties anticipate the need for a protective order relating to the 

discovery of information relating to a trade secret or other confidential research, 

development, or commercial information;

g. Any issues or proposals relating to the timing, sequencing, phasing or scheduling 

of discovery; and

h. Whether the parties anticipate the need to take discovery outside the United States 

and, if so, a description of the proposed discovery.

Additional Disclosures Related to Electronic Discovery

1. Discovery Relating to Electronic, Digital and/or Magnetic Data. Prior to a Fed. R. Civ. P. 

26(f) conference, the parties should carefully investigate their respective information

management system so that they are knowledgeable as to its operation, including how 

information is stored and how it can be retrieved. The parties shall also conduct a 

reasonable review of their respective computer files to ascertain the contents thereof, 

including archival and legacy data (outdated formats or media), and disclose in initial 

discovery (self-executing routine discovery) the computer-based evidence which may be 

used to support claims or defenses.

2. The parties shall meet and confer regarding the following matters during the Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 26(f) conference, and address the status of Electronic Discovery and any disagreements 

in their Statement, including:

a. Preservation: The parties shall attempt to agree on steps the parties will take to 

segregate and preserve computer-based information in order to avoid accusations 

of spoilation.

b. Scope of Email Discovery: The parties shall attempt to agree as to the scope of 

Case 1:21-cv-01275-KES-EPG Document 52 Filed 07/26/23 Page 3 of 6
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

email discovery and attempt to agree upon an email search protocol. The parties 

should seek to agree on search terms, custodians, and date ranges in advance of the 

Conference so that any disputes can be addressed at the Conference.

c. Inadvertent Production of Privileged Information: The parties should confer 

regarding procedures for inadvertent production of privileged electronic material, 

including any obligations to notify the other party, and procedures for bringing any 

disputes promptly to the Court.

d. Data Restoration: The parties shall confer regarding whether or not restoration of 

deleted information may be necessary, the extent to which restoration of deleted 

information is needed, and who will bear the costs of restoration; and the parties 

shall attempt to agree whether or not back-up data may be necessary, the extent to 

which back-up data is needed, and who will bear the cost of obtaining back-up 

data.

3. Date for filing of dispositive motions agreed to by all parties:

a. The filing of dispositive motions (except motions in limine or other trial motions). 

The Court suggests this date be forty-five (45) days after the expert discovery 

deadline.

b. The Court will set a pretrial conference and trial date based off the dispositivemotions deadline and according to the assigned District Judge’s preferences and 

availability. Accordingly, the parties need not propose dates for the pretrial 

conference or trial.

4. The parties are encouraged to discuss settlement and must include a statement in the Joint 

Scheduling Report as to the possibility of settlement. The parties shall indicate when they 

desire a settlement conference, e.g., before further discovery, after discovery, after pretrial 

motions, etc. Among other things, the parties will be expected to discuss the possibility of 

settlement at the Scheduling Conference. Note that, even if settlement negotiations are 

progressing, the parties are expected to comply with the requirements of this Order unless 

otherwise excused by the Court. If the entire case is settled, the parties shall promptly 

inform the Court. In the event of settlement, the parties’ presence at the conference, as 

Case 1:21-cv-01275-KES-EPG Document 52 Filed 07/26/23 Page 4 of 6
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

well as the Joint Scheduling Report, will not be required.

5. A statement as to whether the case is a jury or non-jury case. The parties shall briefly 

outline their respective positions if there is a disagreement as to whether a jury trial has 

been timely demanded, or as to whether a jury trial is available on some or all of the 

claims.

6. An estimate of the number of trial days required. If the parties cannot agree, each party 

shall give his or her best estimate.

7. Whether either party requests bifurcation or phasing of trial or has any other suggestion 

for shortening or expediting discovery, pretrial motions or trial.

8. Whether this matter is related to any matter pending in this court or any other court, 

including bankruptcy court.

Scheduling Order

Following the Scheduling Conference, the Court will issue a Scheduling Order with the 

benefit of the input of the parties. Once issued, the dates in the Scheduling Order shall be firm 

and no extension shall be given without permission from the Court.

Lack of Participation in the Joint Scheduling Report

If any party fails to participate in the preparation of the Joint Scheduling Report, the nonoffending party shall detail the party’s effort to get the offending party to participate in the Joint 

Scheduling Report. The non-offending party shall still file the report at least seven (7) days prior 

to the Mandatory Scheduling Conference and shall list the non-offending party’s position on the 

listed issues and proposed dates for a schedule. Absent good cause, the dates proposed by the 

non-offending party will be presumed to be the dates offered by the parties. The offending party 

may be subject to sanctions, including monetary sanctions to compensate the non-offending 

party’s time and effort incurred in seeking compliance with this Scheduling Order.

Important Chambers Information

The parties are directed to the Court’s website at www.caed.uscourts.gov under Judges; 

Grosjean (EPG); “Standard Procedures” (in the area entitled “Case Management 

Procedures”) for specific information regarding Chambers procedures. Information about law 

and motion, scheduling conferences, telephonic appearances, and discovery disputes is provided 

Case 1:21-cv-01275-KES-EPG Document 52 Filed 07/26/23 Page 5 of 6
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

at this link.

Sanctions for failure to Comply

Should counsel or a pro se party fail to appear at the Mandatory Scheduling Conference, 

or fail to comply with the directions as set forth above, an ex parte hearing may be held and 

contempt sanctions, including monetary sanctions, dismissal, default, or other appropriate

judgment, may be imposed and/or ordered.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 26, 2023 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:21-cv-01275-KES-EPG Document 52 Filed 07/26/23 Page 6 of 6