Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00128/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00128-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
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

MARGARET A. SHEPHERD,

Plaintiff,

v.

OFFICER GARRETT CRAWFORD,

OFFICER D. GRIEPP, OFFICER DAVID

ANGAROLE, OFFICER T. MUSTARO,

OFFICER JOSEPH PIMENTAL, OFFICER

SCOPESI, OFFICER YAIR OAXACA,

DOE OFFICER ONE, DOE OFFICER

TWO, DOE OFFICER THREE, DOE

OFFICER FOUR, CITY OF MODESTO,

THE COPPER RHINO, LLC, LESLIE R.

KNOLL, GRIFFIN ALLEN DYE, and

DOES 5-20, inclusive,

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:08-cv-0128 OWW DLB

SCHEDULING CONFERENCE ORDER 

Discovery Cut-Off: 1/15/09

Non-Dispositive Motion

Filing Deadline: 1/30/09

Dispositive Motion Filing

Deadline: 2/16/09

Settlement Conference Date:

1/27/09 10:00 Ctrm. 9

Pre-Trial Conference

Date: 4/27/09 11:00 Ctrm. 3

Trial Date: 6/9/09 9:00

Ctrm. 3 (JT-12 days)

I. Date of Scheduling Conference.

May 1, 2008.

II. Appearances Of Counsel.

James F. DeMartini, Esq., appeared on behalf of Plaintiff. 

Kimberly C. Colwell, Esq., appeared on behalf of Defendants

City of Modesto and all of the individually named officers. 

R. Ernest Montanari, Esq., appeared on behalf of Defendants

The Copper Rhino, LLC, Leslie R. Knoll, and Griffin Allen Dye.

Case 1:08-cv-00128-OWW -DLB Document 23 Filed 05/02/08 Page 1 of 9
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

III. Summary of Pleadings. 

1. Plaintiff alleges that on the night of January 14,

2007, while she and her family were patrons of Defendant The

Copper Rhino, LLC, she suffered injuries when attacked by the

named members of the City of Modesto Police Department and

employees of The Copper Rhino, LLC. 

2. Defendants deny that they are liable to Plaintiff for

any injuries she may have suffered on the night referred to in

the Complaint. 

IV. Orders Re Amendments To Pleadings.

1. The parties do not currently contemplate amendments to

the pleadings. 

V. Factual Summary.

A. Admitted Facts Which Are Deemed Proven Without Further

Proceedings. 

1. Plaintiff Margaret A. Shepherd is an individual

citizen of the United States and resident of the Eastern District

of California, Fresno Division, at the time of the allegations in

the complaint. 

2. All named Officers are duly sworn peace officers

of the State of California and employed by the City of Modesto as

police officers, and were acting in the course and scope of their

employment at all times alleged and under color of law. 

3. The Copper Rhino, LLC, is a limited liability

company formed and existing under the laws of the State of

California, doing business as a restaurant/bar in the City of

Modesto, State and Eastern District of California. 

4. Leslie R. Knoll and Griffin Allen Dye are

Case 1:08-cv-00128-OWW -DLB Document 23 Filed 05/02/08 Page 2 of 9
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

individual residents of the Eastern District of California,

Fresno Division. Leslie R. Knoll is an officer and director of

The Copper Rhino, LLC. Griffin Allen Dye is employed as an

employee of The Copper Rhino, LLC.

5. The circumstances out of which the claims arise

occurred on or about the night of January 14, 2007, at The Copper

Rhino located at 927 10th Street, Modesto, California. 

6. The Copper Rhino is open to the public for the

service of food and beverages. 

7. Plaintiff Margaret A. Shepherd was arrested

following the incident on January 14, 2007. 

B. Contested Facts.

1. All remaining facts are disputed. 

VI. Legal Issues.

A. Uncontested.

1. Jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343

and 1367; 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

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

3. The substantive law of the State of California

provides the rule of decision as to supplemental claims. 

4. Each of the law enforcement Defendants were acting

in the course and scope of their employment and under color of

law. 

B. Contested. 

1. All remaining legal issues are disputed including,

but not limited to, whether any Defendant violated the civil

rights of Plaintiff.

2. Causation.

Case 1:08-cv-00128-OWW -DLB Document 23 Filed 05/02/08 Page 3 of 9
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

3. Damages.

4. Whether any Defendant is entitled to immunity.

5. Whether any Defendant was justified in any use of

force with respect to Plaintiff. 

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 are ordered to complete all discovery on

or before January 15, 2009.

2. The parties are directed to disclose all expert

witnesses, in writing, on or before November 14, 2008. Any

supplemental or rebuttal expert disclosures will be made on or

before December 15, 2008. The parties will comply with the

provisions of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) regarding

their expert 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

Case 1:08-cv-00128-OWW -DLB Document 23 Filed 05/02/08 Page 4 of 9
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

testimony or other evidence offered through such experts that are

not disclosed pursuant to this order.

3. 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 January 30, 2009,

and heard on March 6, 2009, at 9:00 a.m. before Magistrate Judge

Dennis L. Beck in Courtroom 9. 

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 February 16, 2009, and will be heard on March

23, 2009, 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. 

XI. Pre-Trial Conference Date.

1. April 27, 2009, 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 PreCase 1:08-cv-00128-OWW -DLB Document 23 Filed 05/02/08 Page 5 of 9
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

Trial 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. June 9, 2009, 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. 12 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 January 27,

2009, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 9 before the Honorable Dennis L.

Beck, 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

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

Case 1:08-cv-00128-OWW -DLB Document 23 Filed 05/02/08 Page 6 of 9
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

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

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

Case 1:08-cv-00128-OWW -DLB Document 23 Filed 05/02/08 Page 7 of 9
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

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. None. 

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

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

Case 1:08-cv-00128-OWW -DLB Document 23 Filed 05/02/08 Page 8 of 9
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

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: May 2, 2008 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:08-cv-00128-OWW -DLB Document 23 Filed 05/02/08 Page 9 of 9