Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01715/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01715-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:4332 Environmental Policy - Coop of Agency Reports

---

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

1

 Although the parties were supposed to file a joint status report, defendant Electronic

Data Systems Corporation filed a unilateral report on September 20, 2006. According to

defendant, it was unable to have a meaningful conference or discussion with plaintiff, and

therefore had to file a unilateral report. Accordingly, the court ordered plaintiff to file a separate

status report, which he did. 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANDRE RHODES,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-1715 MCE EFB PS

vs.

ELECTRONIC DATA SYSTEMS 

CORPORATION, 

ORDER

Defendant. 

 /

The parties have filed separate status reports in this action.1

 Accordingly, the

court makes the following findings and orders:

SERVICE OF PROCESS

All defendants have been served and no further service is permitted except with

leave of court, good cause having been shown.

JOINDER OF PARTIES/AMENDMENTS

No further joinder of parties or amendments to pleadings is permitted except with

leave of court, good cause having been shown.

Case 2:06-cv-01715-MCE -EFB Document 80 Filed 11/29/06 Page 1 of 7
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 2

 Any reference to “counsel” in this order includes parties appearing in propria persona.

2

JURISDICTION/VENUE

Jurisdiction is undisputed and is hereby found to be proper, as is venue.

MOTION HEARING SCHEDULES

All law and motion except as to discovery is left open, save and except that it

shall be conducted so as to be completed by June 13, 2007. The word “completed” in this

context means that all law and motion matters must be heard by the above date. Counsel (and/or

pro se parties)2 are cautioned to refer to the local rules regarding the requirements for noticing

such motions on the court’s regularly scheduled law and motion calendar. This paragraph does

not preclude motions for continuances, temporary restraining orders or other emergency

applications, and is subject to any special scheduling set forth in the “MISCELLANEOUS

PROVISIONS” paragraph below.

The parties should keep in mind that the purpose of law and motion is to narrow

and refine the legal issues raised by the case, and to dispose of by pretrial motion those issues

that are susceptible to resolution without trial. To accomplish that purpose, the parties need to

identify and fully research the issues presented by the case, and then examine those issues in

light of the evidence gleaned through discovery. If it appears to counsel after examining the

legal issues and facts that an issue can be resolved by pretrial motion, counsel are to file the

appropriate motion by the law and motion cutoff set forth above.

ALL PURELY LEGAL ISSUES ARE TO BE RESOLVED BY TIMELY

PRETRIAL MOTION. Counsel are reminded that motions in limine are procedural devices

designed to address the admissibility of evidence. COUNSEL ARE CAUTIONED THAT THE

COURT WILL LOOK WITH DISFAVOR UPON SUBSTANTIVE MOTIONS PRESENTED

IN THE GUISE OF MOTIONS IN LIMINE AT THE TIME OF TRIAL. 

////

Case 2:06-cv-01715-MCE -EFB Document 80 Filed 11/29/06 Page 2 of 7
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

3

DISCOVERY

All discovery is left open, save and except that it shall be so conducted as to be

completed by April 13, 2007. The word “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 order if necessary and, where discovery has been ordered, the

order has been complied with. Motions to compel discovery must be noticed on the

undersigned’s calendar in accordance with the local rules of this court and so that such motions

will be heard not later than March 13, 2007.

EXPERT DISCLOSURE

All counsel are to designate in writing and file with the court, and serve upon all

other parties, the names of all experts that they propose to tender at trial not later than February

28, 2007. An expert witness not appearing on said lists will not be permitted to testify unless the

party offering the witness demonstrates: (a) that the necessity of the witness could not have been

reasonably anticipated at the time the lists were exchanged; (b) the court and opposing counsel

were promptly notified upon discovery of the witness; and (c) that the witness was promptly

proffered for deposition. Failure to provide the information required along with the expert

designation may lead to preclusion of the expert’s testimony or other appropriate sanctions.

For the purposes of this scheduling order, experts are defined as “percipient” and

“Rule 26” experts. Both types of experts shall be listed. Percipient experts are persons who,

because of their expertise, have rendered expert opinions in the normal course of their work

duties or observations pertinent to the issues in the case. Another term for their opinions are

“historical opinions.” Percipient experts are experts who, unless also designated as Rule 26

experts, are limited to testifying to their historical opinions and the reasons for them. That is,

they may be asked to testify about their opinions given in the past and the whys and wherefores

concerning the development of those opinions. However, they may not be asked to render a

current opinion for the purposes of the litigation.

Case 2:06-cv-01715-MCE -EFB Document 80 Filed 11/29/06 Page 3 of 7
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 3

 The court is not interested in a designation of non-testifying Rule 26 experts.

4

Rule 26 experts, who may be percipient experts as well, are specifically

designated by a party to be a testifying expert for the purposes of the litigation.3

 The Rule 26

expert may express opinions formed for the purposes of the litigation. A party designating a

Rule 26 expert will be assumed to have acquired the express permission of the witness to be so 

listed. 

The parties shall comply with the information disclosure provisions of Fed. R.

Civ. P. 26(a)(2) for any expert, who is in whole or in part designated as a Rule 26 expert. This

information is due at the time of designation. Failure to supply the required information may

result in the Rule 26 expert being stricken. All Rule 26 experts are to be fully prepared to render

an informed opinion at the time of designation so that they may fully participate in any

deposition taken by the opposing party. Rule 26 experts will not be permitted to testify at trial as

to any information gathered or evaluated, or opinion formed, which should have been reasonably

available at the time of designation. The court will closely scrutinize for discovery abuse

deposition opinions which differ markedly in nature and/or in bases from those expressed in the

mandatory information disclosure.

FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE

The final pretrial conference is set for hearing on September 10, 2007, at 2:30

p.m. in Courtroom No. 3 before the Honorable Morrison C. England, Jr. Trial counsel shall

appear and be fully prepared. The parties are cautioned in this regard that counsel appearing for

pretrial will, in fact, try the matter. Counsel for all parties are to be fully prepared for trial at the

time of the pretrial conference, with no matters remaining to be accomplished except production

of witnesses for oral testimony. Counsel are referred to E.D. Cal. L.R. 16-281 and 16-282

relating to pretrial statements and conferences. A FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH E.D. CAL.

L.R. 16-281 AND 16-282 WILL BE GROUNDS FOR SANCTIONS. 

Case 2:06-cv-01715-MCE -EFB Document 80 Filed 11/29/06 Page 4 of 7
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

4

 However, with respect to the listing of undisputed facts, the court will accept

agreements as to evidentiary facts. 

5

Notwithstanding E.D. Cal. L.R. 16-281, the parties shall submit a joint pretrial

statement not later than ten (10) court days prior to the pretrial conference. The joint pretrial

statement shall conform with the requirements of E.D. Cal. L.R. 16-281(b). The undisputed

facts and disputed factual issues shall be set forth in two separate sections. The parties should

identify those facts which are relevant to each separate cause of action. In this regard, the parties

are to number each individual fact or factual issues. Where the parties are unable to agree as to

what factual issues are properly before the court for trial, they should nevertheless list in the

section on “DISPUTED FACTUAL ISSUES” all issues asserted by any of the parties and

explain by parenthetical the controversy concerning each issue. The parties should keep in mind

that, in general, each fact should relate or correspond to an element of the relevant cause of

action. The parties should also keep in mind that the purpose of listing the disputed factual

issues is to apprise the court and all parties about the precise issues that will be litigated at trial. 

The court is not interested in a listing of all evidentiary facts underlying the issues that are in

dispute.4

 The joint statement of undisputed facts and disputed factual issues is to be filed with

the court concurrently with the filing of the joint pretrial statement. 

Pursuant to E.D. Cal. L.R. 281(b)(10) and (11), the parties are required to provide

in their pretrial statement a list of witnesses and exhibits that they propose to proffer at trial, no

matter for what purpose. These lists shall not be contained in the pretrial statement itself, but

shall be attached as separate documents to be used as addenda to the final pretrial order. 

Plaintiff’s exhibits shall be listed numerically; defendant’s exhibits shall be listed alphabetically. 

The pretrial order will contain a stringent standard for the proffering of witnesses and exhibits at

trial not listed in the pretrial order. Counsel are cautioned that the standard will be strictly

applied. On the other hand, the listing of exhibits or witnesses which counsel do not intend or

use will be viewed as an abuse of the court’s processes. 

Case 2:06-cv-01715-MCE -EFB Document 80 Filed 11/29/06 Page 5 of 7
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

6

Counsel are reminded that, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16, it will be their duty at

the pretrial conference to aid the court in (a) formulation and simplification of issues and the

elimination of meritless claims or defenses; (b) settling of facts which should be properly

admitted; and (c) avoidance of unnecessary proof and cumulative evidence. The parties must

prepare their joint pretrial statement, and participate in good faith at the pretrial conference, with

these aims in mind. A FAILURE TO DO SO MAY RESULT IN THE IMPOSITION OF

SANCTIONS which may include monetary sanctions, orders precluding proof, eliminations of

claims or defenses, or such other sanctions as the court deems appropriate. 

TRIAL SETTING

Trial is set for December 12, 2007, at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom No. 3 of the

Honorable Morrison C. England, Jr. Trial will be by jury. Based on the parties’ representations,

the trial is calendared to take 7 court days.

SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE

A Settlement Conference will be set at the time of the Pretrial Conference.

MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

There appear to be no other matters presently pending before the court that will

aid the just and expeditious disposition of this matter.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b), THIS COURT SUMMARIZES THE

SCHEDULING ORDER AS FOLLOWS:

1. The parties may conduct discovery until April 13, 2007. Motions

to compel discovery are to be noticed to be heard by March 13,

2007, as more specifically described in this order. 

2. The parties shall disclose experts, as described herein, by February 28,

2007.

////

Case 2:06-cv-01715-MCE -EFB Document 80 Filed 11/29/06 Page 6 of 7
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

7

3. All pretrial motions, except motions to compel discovery, shall be

completed as described herein on or before June 13, 2007. 

4. The final pretrial conference (as described in E.D. Cal. L.R. 16-282) in

this case is set for September 10, 2007, at 2:30 p.m. in Courtroom No. 3 of

the Honorable Morrison C. England, Jr. Pretrial statements shall be filed

in accord with E.D. Cal. L.R. 16-281 and 16-282.

6. This matter is set for jury trial on December 12, 2007, at 9:00 a.m. in

Courtroom No. 3 of the Honorable Morrison C. England, Jr. 

DATED: November 28, 2006.

Case 2:06-cv-01715-MCE -EFB Document 80 Filed 11/29/06 Page 7 of 7