Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00457/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00457-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT E. HUNTER, D.V.M., )

individually and as class )

representative for all others )

similarly situated; HOWARD ELEY )

individually, and as class )

representative for all others )

similarly situated, )

) 2:06-cv-0457-GEB-EFB

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. ) STATUS (PRETRIAL

) SCHEDULING) ORDER

)

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, SHERIFF’S )

DEPARTMENT; SHERIFF LOU BLANAS, )

in his individual and official )

capacity; COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO; )

WILLIAM KEVIN SOWLES, in his )

individual capacity; and DOES 1 )

through 100, )

) 

Defendants. )

)

A status (pretrial scheduling) conference was scheduled in

this case on November 20, 2006. The joint status report submitted by

the parties, however, obviated the need for the conference and the

Court makes the following order based on the parties’ joint status

report and the earliest dates available on the Court's calendar.

Case 2:06-cv-00457-GEB-AC Document 33 Filed 11/17/06 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

27

28

2

SERVICE OF PROCESS AND FED. R. CIV. P. 4(m) NOTICE

All defendants have been served with the exception of

William Kevin Sowles (“Sowles”). 

Plaintiffs are hereby notified that Sowles may be dismissed

as a named defendant in this action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) if he

is not served on or before December 20, 2006. To avoid dismissal, no

later than 2:00 p.m. on December 21, 2006, Plaintiffs shall file

either proof of service or, if Plaintiffs believe they have good cause

to justify extension of the time to serve Sowles, a declaration

showing "good cause" why the action should not be dismissed without

prejudice because of Plaintiffs' failure to make service on Sowles

within the initial 120-day period. A perfunctory response that fails

to show good cause for the failure could result in dismissal of the

action. 

No further service is permitted in this action, except with

leave of Court, good cause having been shown.

SERVICE OF STATUS ORDER

If Sowles is served within the time period prescribed by

Rule 4(m), concurrently with the service of process, Sowles shall be

served with a copy of this Order. 

Sowles has thirty days after said service within which to

file a "Notice of Proposed Modification of Status Order." A hearing

on the Notice will be scheduled, if necessary. Sowles’ proposed

modification filed within this thirty day period will not have to meet

the good cause standard.

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:06-cv-00457-GEB-AC Document 33 Filed 11/17/06 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

27

28

Plaintiffs’ statement in the JSR that they “anticipate joinder 1

of individual officers once identified” is too imprecise to except the

referenced possible amendment from the "good cause" standard. "Parties

anticipating possible amendments . . . have an 'unflagging obligation'

to alert the Rule 16 scheduling judge of the . . . timing of such

anticipated amendments in their status reports so that the judge can

consider whether such amendments may properly be sought solely under the

Rule 15(a) standard, and whether structuring discovery pertinent to the

parties' decision whether to amend is feasible." Jackson v. Laureate,

Inc., 186 F.R.D. 605, 608 (E.D. Cal. 1999) (citation omitted). 

In the JSR, “Plaintiff requests double the amount of 2

interrogatories . . . and two separate entity . . . Person Most

Knowledgeable depositions . . . [and] 20 additional hours for the second

. . . deposition . . . due to the complexity and class nature of this

case.” (JSR at 3-4.) Plaintiffs state that “[t]hese modified discovery

procedures . . . will expedite the case, and reduce costs by taking

unnecessary depositions.” (JSR at 4.) It is unclear what Plaintiffs

mean by “unnecessary depositions” and how requesting additional

discovery will reduce costs. A request to modify discovery requirements

shall be directed to the Magistrate Judge assigned to this case, see

infra note 3, and shall be determined according to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 26(b)(2), not the good cause standard of Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 16(b).

The parties are advised that the Magistrate Judges in the 3

Eastern District are responsible for resolving discovery disputes. See

Local Rule 72-302(c)(1). Accordingly, counsel shall direct all

discovery-related matters to the Magistrate Judge assigned to this case.

(continued...)

3

JOINDER OF ADDITIONAL PARTIES/AMENDMENT1

No further joinder of parties or amendments to pleadings is

permitted except with leave of Court, good cause having been shown.

DISCOVERY2

All discovery shall be completed by April 16, 2008. In this

context, "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 orders,

if necessary, and, where discovery has been ordered, the order has

been complied with or, alternatively, the time allowed for such

compliance shall have expired.3

Case 2:06-cv-00457-GEB-AC Document 33 Filed 11/17/06 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

27

28

(...continued) 3

A party conducting discovery near the discovery "completion" date runs

the risk of losing the opportunity to have a judge resolve discovery

motions pursuant to the Local Rules.

January 31, 2007, is not a regular law and motion date. 4

This time deadline does not apply to motions for continuances, 5

temporary restraining orders, emergency applications, or motions under

Rule 16(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

4

Each party shall comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

26(a)(2)’s initial expert witness disclosure and report requirements

on or before November 16, 2007, and with the rebuttal expert

disclosures authorized under the Rule on or before December 17, 2007. 

CLASS CERTIFICATION

In the JSR, “Defendants request that the court set a motion

date for class certification, to be heard prior to January 31, 2007.” 

(JSR at 4.) Plaintiffs did not indicate their position on this

request. Rule 23 (c)(1)(A) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

states that “the court must – as early as practicable – determine by

order whether to certify the action as a class action.” Since

Plaintiffs have not shown that the date requested by Defendants is not

“as early as practicable,” Plaintiffs shall notice their motion for

class certification for hearing on either February 5, 2007, or an

earlier available regular law and motion date.4

MOTION HEARING SCHEDULE

The last hearing date for motions shall be June 16, 2008, at

9:00 a.m.5

Motions shall be filed in accordance with Local Rule 78-

230(b). Opposition papers shall be filed in accordance with Local

Rule 78-230(c). Failure to comply with this local rule may be deemed

consent to the motion and the Court may dispose of the motion

Case 2:06-cv-00457-GEB-AC Document 33 Filed 11/17/06 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

27

28

5

summarily. Brydges v. Lewis, 18 F.3d 651, 652-53 (9th Cir. 1994). 

Further, failure to timely oppose a summary judgment motion may result

in the granting of that motion if the movant shifts the burden to the

nonmovant to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact remains for

trial. Cf. Marshall v. Gates, 44 F.3d 722 (9th Cir. 1995). 

Absent highly unusual circumstances, reconsideration of a

motion is appropriate only where:

(1) The Court is presented with newly discovered evidence

that could not reasonably have been discovered prior to the filing of

the party's motion or opposition papers;

(2) The Court committed clear error or the initial decision

was manifestly unjust; or

(3) There is an intervening change in controlling law.

A motion for reconsideration based on newly discovered evidence shall

set forth, in detail, the reason why said evidence could not

reasonably have been discovered prior to the filing of the party's

motion or opposition papers. Motions for reconsideration shall comply

with Local Rule 78-230(k) in all other respects.

The parties are cautioned that an untimely motion

characterized as a motion in limine may be summarily denied. A motion

in limine addresses the admissibility of evidence.

 FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE

The final pretrial conference is set for August 11, 2008, at

1:30 p.m. The parties are cautioned that the lead attorney who WILL

TRY THE CASE for each party shall attend the final pretrial

conference. In addition, all persons representing themselves and

appearing in propria persona must attend the pretrial conference.

Case 2:06-cv-00457-GEB-AC Document 33 Filed 11/17/06 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

27

28

The failure of one or more of the parties to participate in 6

the preparation of any joint document required to be filed in this case

does not excuse the other parties from their obligation to timely file

the document in accordance with this Order. In the event a party fails

to participate as ordered, the party or parties timely submitting the

document shall include a declaration explaining why they were unable to

obtain the cooperation of the other party. 

6

The parties are warned that non-trialworthy issues could be

eliminated sua sponte “[i]f the pretrial conference discloses that no

material facts are in dispute and that the undisputed facts entitle

one of the parties to judgment as a matter of law.” Portsmouth Square

v. Shareholders Protective Comm., 770 F.2d 866, 869 (9th Cir. 1985). 

The parties shall file a JOINT pretrial statement with the

Court not later than seven (7) days prior to the final pretrial

conference. The joint pretrial statement shall specify the issues 6

for trial. The Court uses the parties' joint pretrial statement to

prepare its final pretrial order and could issue the final pretrial

order without holding the scheduled final pretrial conference. See

Mizwicki v. Helwig, 196 F.3d 828, 833 (7th Cir. 1999) (“There is no

requirement that the court hold a pretrial conference.”). The final

pretrial order supersedes the pleadings and controls the facts and

issues which may be presented at trial. Issues asserted in pleadings

which are not preserved for trial in the final pretrial order cannot

be raised at trial. Hotel Emp., et al. Health Tr. v. Elks Lodge 1450,

827 F.2d 1324, 1329 (9th Cir. 1987) (“Issues not preserved in the

pretrial order are eliminated from the action.”); Valley Ranch Dev.

Co. v. F.D.I.C., 960 F.2d 550, 554 (5th Cir. 1992) (indicating that an

issue omitted from the pretrial order is waived, even if it appeared

in the pleading); cf. Raney v. District of Columbia, 892 F. Supp. 283

(D.D.C. 1995) (refusing to modify the pretrial order to allow

Case 2:06-cv-00457-GEB-AC Document 33 Filed 11/17/06 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

27

28

7

assertion of a previously-pled statute of limitations defense);

Olympia Co. v. Celotex Corp., 597 F. Supp. 285, 289 (E.D. La. 1984)

(indicating that “[a]ny factual contention, legal contention, any

claim for relief or defense in whole or in part, or affirmative matter

not set forth in [the pretrial statement] shall be deemed . . .

withdrawn, notwithstanding the contentions of any pleadings or other

papers previously filed [in the action]”). 

If possible, at the time of filing the joint pretrial

statement counsel shall also email it in a format compatible with

WordPerfect to: geborders@caed.uscourts.gov.

TRIAL SETTING

Trial is set for November 4, 2008, commencing at 9:00 a.m. 

MISCELLANEOUS

The parties are reminded that pursuant to Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 16(b), the Status (pretrial scheduling) Order shall

not be modified except by leave of Court upon a showing of good cause. 

Counsel are cautioned that a mere stipulation by itself to change

dates does not constitute good cause. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 17, 2006

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cv-00457-GEB-AC Document 33 Filed 11/17/06 Page 7 of 7