Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00735/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00735-3/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

HOWARD WEIMER,

Plaintiff,

v.

COUNTY OF KERN, et al.,

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:06-cv-0735 OWW DLB

SCHEDULING CONFERENCE ORDER 

Discovery Cut-Off: 11/30/07

Non-Dispositive Motion

Filing Deadline: 12/14/07

Dispositive Motion Filing

Deadline: 1/4/08

Settlement Conference Date:

3/9/07 10:00 Ctrm. 9

Pre-Trial Conference

Date: 3/31/08 11:00 Ctrm. 3

Trial Date: 4/29/08 9:00

Ctrm. 3 (JT-24 days)

I. Date of Scheduling Conference.

January 26, 2007.

II. Appearances Of Counsel.

Patience Milrod, Esq., and Laurence O. Masson, Esq.,

appeared on behalf of Plaintiff.

Mark Nations, Esq., appeared on behalf of Defendants County

of Kern, the Sheriff’s Department, Brad Darling, Caroline

Darling, Barbara Jones, Irene Valos and Ed Jagels. 

Case 1:06-cv-00735-OWW -DLB Document 32 Filed 01/30/07 Page 1 of 12
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

Weakley, Ratliff, by James Arendt, Esq., appeared on behalf

of Defendant Andrew Gindes.

Oliver U. Robinson, Esq., appeared on behalf of Defendant

Jack Rutledge.

III. Summary of Pleadings. 

1. Plaintiff, Howard Weimer, brings this action pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and California law, asserting his

wrongful conviction and imprisonment on false charges of child

molestation. Plaintiff asserts that Defendants’ acts and

omissions - in engaging inter alia in fatally flawed

investigations which foreseeably resulted in coerced, false and

unreliable testimony; in failing and refusing to gather, preserve

and/or disclose material exculpatory evidence; and in failing to

adequately manage and supervise the criminal investigation -

constituted violations of Plaintiff’s statutory and

constitutional rights and were the direct and proximate cause of

his wrongful conviction and imprisonment.

2. Plaintiff alleges unspecified medical expenses, general

damages, punitive damages against the individual Defendants and

entitlement to declaratory relief and attorneys’ fees and costs.

3. Defendants assert that they acted at all times with

probable cause and that the investigation methods utilized were

in common use among law enforcement agencies at the time. The

evidence of Plaintiff’s guilt passed muster with the preliminary

hearing judge, a jury of Plaintiff’s peers, and an appellate

court. At no time did Defendants know or have reason to know

Plaintiff was innocent, nor did they utilize investigation

techniques that were so abusive or wrongful that they knew or

Case 1:06-cv-00735-OWW -DLB Document 32 Filed 01/30/07 Page 2 of 12
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

should have known they would yield false information. Defendant

Jack Rutledge contends that the Plaintiff, Howard Weimer, was, in

fact, guilty of child molestation. While Plaintiff was being

prosecuted for child molestation, other victims came forward who

also accused him and which resulted in the filing of separate

charges which were ultimately dismissed after Plaintiff’s

conviction was upheld on appeal. None of the children who

accused Plaintiff of child molesting have ever recanted. 

Defendants turned over all exculpatory evidence which the court

overseeing the prosecution ordered it to turn over. Defendants

did not withhold exculpatory evidence in violation of Brady v.

Maryland. Defendants Edward Jagels, Andrew Gindes, Barbara

Jones, Carol Darling and Irene Valos all claim absolute immunity. 

Defendants Brad Darling, Jack Rutledge, Edward Jagels, Andrew

Gindes, Carol Darling, Barbara Jones and Irene Valos all claim

qualified immunity. Defendant Edward Laurence Kleier died on

January 5, 2007, of renal cancer. Defendant Jagels contends the

action against him is barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

IV. Orders Re Amendments To Pleadings.

1. Pursuant to the Court’s December 27, 2006, order on

Defendant Gindes’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion, Plaintiff has filed a

First Amended Complaint on January 8, 2007. No other amendments

to the pleadings are contemplated at this time. 

V. Factual Summary.

A. Admitted Facts Which Are Deemed Proven Without Further

Proceedings. 

1. Plaintiff Howard Weimer, is a resident of Kern

County, Eastern District of California. He is 83 years old.

Case 1:06-cv-00735-OWW -DLB Document 32 Filed 01/30/07 Page 3 of 12
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

2. All Defendants at all relevant times were public

entities or agencies, or elected or appointed officials of Kern

County, or were otherwise employed by the County of Kern, and

were acting under color of law. Defendant Irene Valos was

neither a county employee nor an elected or appointed official

during the times relevant to this case. She was working on an

internship through Kern County.

3. In 1985, Mr. Weimer was convicted of molesting two

foster children who had been placed in his home by the Kern

County Welfare Department. Mr. Weimer was imprisoned from

January 1988, until December 27, 1997.

4. Mr. Weimer’s conviction was overturned in 2004.

B. Contested Facts.

1. Defendants contest the facts alleged by Plaintiff

relating to liability. 

2. Defendants contest the facts alleged by Plaintiff

relating to damages.

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(b) and the

Civil Rights Act.

3. The parties agree that as to supplemental claims,

the substantive law of the State of California provides the rule

of decision. 

B. Contested. 

1. Whether Defendants’ investigation, prosecution and

Case 1:06-cv-00735-OWW -DLB Document 32 Filed 01/30/07 Page 4 of 12
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

conviction of Plaintiff violated Mr. Weimer’s state and federal

statutory and constitutional rights.

2. Whether Defendants’ challenged acts and omissions

in investigating, prosecuting and securing Mr. Weimer’s

conviction constituted a longstanding practice or custom of Kern

County within the meaning of Monell v. Department of Social

Services of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 690, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56

L.Ed.2d 611 (1978), and/or represented acts of, or ratification

by, Kern County “final policymakers” within the meaning of

McMillian v. Monroe County, 520 U.S. 781, 785, 117 S.Ct. 1734,

138 L.Ed.2d 1 (1997).

3. The nature and extent of Mr. Weimer’s injuries and

damages.

4. Whether Mr. Weimer is entitled to punitive

damages.

5. Whether Mr. Weimer is entitled to declaratory

relief on his California constitutional claims.

6. Whether there are affirmative defenses pertinent to

this matter.

7. whether any of the Defendants is absolutely

immune; whether any of the Defendants is qualifiedly immune;

whether the action against Defendant Jagels is barred by the

Eleventh Amendment. 

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

Case 1:06-cv-00735-OWW -DLB Document 32 Filed 01/30/07 Page 5 of 12
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

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. Proposed changes to the limits of discovery as set

forth by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b), 30(a)(2)(A), (B) or (C), 30(d),

or 33(a):

a. Defendants request that the deposition limit be

raised to 30 per side with the privso that more may be requested

should the need arise and the parties cannot agree. The parties

will consider any other expressed needs on a case-by-case basis

of they arise.

2. Need for a protective order:

a. Plaintiff anticipates that records relating to

identities of former foster children, and county records and

investigations involving them, including medical records, will be

produced pursuant to some kind of protective order.

3. Issues or proposals relating to timing, sequence or

scheduling of discovery:

a. By the time of the scheduling conference,

Plaintiff will have subpoenaed what the Attorney General’s Office

has described as approximately 18 banker’s boxes of backup

materials supporting its 1986 report regarding Kern County child

molestation investigations and prosecutions. It may be necessary

to refer to the Court for enforcement of that subpoena.

Case 1:06-cv-00735-OWW -DLB Document 32 Filed 01/30/07 Page 6 of 12
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

4. Discovery outside of the United States:

a. No such discovery is currently anticipated.

5. Video or sound recording of depositions:

a. Plaintiff will video-record Mr. and Mrs. Weimer’s

depositions.

6. Proposal for mid-discovery status report and

conference:

a. The parties will request such a conference if it

appears there is need.

7. The parties are ordered to complete all discovery on

or before November 30, 2007.

8. The parties are directed to disclose all expert

witnesses, in writing, on or before October 1, 2007. Any

supplemental or rebuttal expert disclosures will be made on or

before November 1, 2007. 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

testimony or other evidence offered through such experts that are

not disclosed pursuant to this order.

9. 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. 

Case 1:06-cv-00735-OWW -DLB Document 32 Filed 01/30/07 Page 7 of 12
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

X. Pre-Trial Motion Schedule.

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

discovery motions, will be filed on or before December 14, 2007,

and heard on January 18, 2008, 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 January 4, 2008, and will be heard on

February 11, 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. 

XI. Pre-Trial Conference Date.

1. March 31, 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.

///

Case 1:06-cv-00735-OWW -DLB Document 32 Filed 01/30/07 Page 8 of 12
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

XII. Trial Date.

1. April 29, 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. 24 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 March 9, 2007,

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

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. 

Case 1:06-cv-00735-OWW -DLB Document 32 Filed 01/30/07 Page 9 of 12
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

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

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. 

///

Case 1:06-cv-00735-OWW -DLB Document 32 Filed 01/30/07 Page 10 of 12
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

XIV. Request For Bifurcation, Appointment Of Special Master, 

Or Other Techniques To Shorten Trial. 

1. The amount of punitive damages, if any, shall be tried

in a second phase after any determination of liability and the

right to damages. The second phase shall be tried continuously

before the same jury. Whether Monell issues shall be bifurcated

from liability issues shall be decided by motion. 

XV. Related Matters Pending.

1. The issues in this case related to Kern County’s

pattern and practice of due process violations by fabricating

evidence of child molestation through abusive and coercive

questioning of witnesses, and of withholding exculpatory evidence

in molestation cases, have also been raised in John Andrew Stoll

v. County of Kern, et al., Eastern District of California 1:05-

cv-1059 OWW SMS.

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

Case 1:06-cv-00735-OWW -DLB Document 32 Filed 01/30/07 Page 11 of 12
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

12

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: January 26, 2007 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00735-OWW -DLB Document 32 Filed 01/30/07 Page 12 of 12