Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01739/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01739-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

This Court conducted a scheduling conference on July 22, 2020. Counsel Jeffrey Katz

appeared by telephone on behalf of Plaintiff Garrett Case. Counsel David Kuchinsky appeared by 

telephone on behalf of Defendants Raythel Fisher, Jr., Dr. Harminder Singh Longia, Patricia Johnson, 

and Dr. Wei Gu. Based on the Joint Scheduling Report submitted by the parties, and pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b), this Court sets a schedule for this action.

///

GARRETT CASE,

 Plaintiff,

v.

RAYTHEL FISHER, JR., et al.,

Defendants.

________________________________/

Case No. 1:19-cv-01739-DAD-BAM

SCHEDULING CONFERENCE ORDER

Amendment

to Pleadings: November 6, 2020

Initial Disclosure: Completed.

Expert Disclosure: May 14, 2021

Supplemental

Expert Disclosure: June 18, 2021

Non-expert 

Discovery Cutoff: April 9, 2021

Expert

Discovery Cutoff: August 20, 2021

Pretrial Motion 

Filing Deadline: October 16, 2021

Pretrial Conference: January 24, 2022

 1:30 p.m.

 Courtroom 5 (DAD)

Case 1:19-cv-01739-KES-BAM Document 26 Filed 07/22/20 Page 1 of 6
2

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. Current Status of Consent to the Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), the parties have not consented to conduct all further 

proceedings in this case, including trial, before the Honorable Barbara A. McAuliffe, U.S. Magistrate 

Judge.

2. Amendment to the Parties’ Pleadings

All stipulated amendments or motions to amend shall be filed by November 6, 2020.

3. F.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(1) Initial Disclosures

Initial disclosures have been completed.

4. Discovery Cutoffs And Limits

Initial expert witness disclosures by any party shall be served no later than May 14, 2021. 

Supplemental expert witness disclosures by any party shall be served no later than June 18, 2021. 

Such disclosures must be made pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(2)(A) and (B) and shall include all 

information required thereunder. In addition, F.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(4) and F.R.Civ.P. 26(e) shall 

specifically apply to all discovery relating to expert witnesses and their opinions. Each expert witness 

must be prepared fully to be examined on all subjects and opinions included in the designations. 

Failure to comply with these requirements will result in the imposition of appropriate sanctions, which 

may include the preclusion of testimony or other evidence offered through the expert witness. In 

particular, this Court will enforce preclusion of testimony or other evidence if F.R.Civ.P. 26(e) is not 

strictly complied with. 

All non-expert discovery, including motions to compel, shall be completed no later than April 

9, 2021. All expert discovery, including motions to compel, shall be completed no later than August 

20, 2021. Compliance with these discovery cutoffs requires motions to compel be filed and heard 

sufficiently in advance of the cutoff so that the Court may grant effective relief within the allotted 

discovery time. A parties’ failure to have a discovery dispute heard sufficiently in advance of the 

discovery cutoff may result in denial of the motion as untimely.

5. Pretrial Motion Schedule

All pre-trial motions, both dispositive and non-dispositive (except motions to compel, 

addressed above), shall be served and filed on or before October 16, 2021. Non-dispositive motions 

Case 1:19-cv-01739-KES-BAM Document 26 Filed 07/22/20 Page 2 of 6
3

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

are heard on Fridays at 9:00 a.m., before the Honorable Barbara A. McAuliffe, United States 

Magistrate Judge, in Courtroom 8. Before scheduling such motions, the parties shall comply with 

Local Rule 230 or Local Rule 251. 

Counsel must comply with Local Rule 251 with respect to discovery disputes or the motion 

will be denied without prejudice and dropped from calendar. In addition to filing a joint statement 

electronically, a copy of the joint statement shall also be sent Judge McAuliffe’s chambers by email to 

bamorders@caed.uscourts.gov. Counsel for the parties are additionally required to conduct at least one 

telephonic or in person conference as part of their obligations to met and confer in good faith to 

resolve their discovery dispute prior to seeking judicial intervention. The parties are further cautioned 

that boilerplate objections to written discovery will be summarily denied. 

Upon stipulation of the parties, Judge McAuliffe will resolve discovery disputes by informal 

telephonic conference outside the formal procedures of the Local Rules and Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure governing noticed motions to compel. The procedures for requesting an informal 

telephonic conference are set forth in Judge McAuliffe’s Case Management Procedures located on the 

Court’s website, http://www.caed.uscourts.gov. If the parties stipulate to an informal ruling on a 

discovery dispute that arises during a deposition, they may request an informal ruling during the 

deposition by contacting Judge McAuliffe’s Courtroom Deputy, Esther Valdez, by telephone at (559) 

499-5788. 

The parties are advised that unless prior leave of the Court is obtained, all moving and 

opposition briefs or legal memorandum in civil cases before Judge McAuliffe shall not exceed twentyfive (25) pages. Reply briefs by the moving party shall not exceed ten (10) pages. These page 

limitations do not include exhibits. Briefs that exceed this page limitation, or are sought to be filed 

without leave, may not be considered by the Court.

Counsel or pro se parties may appear and argue non-dispositive motions before Judge 

McAuliffe by telephone by dialing the court’s teleconference line at (877) 411-9748 and entering 

access code 3219139, provided they indicate their intent to appear telephonically on their pleadings or 

by email to evaldez@caed.uscourts.gov at least one week prior to the hearing.

Case 1:19-cv-01739-KES-BAM Document 26 Filed 07/22/20 Page 3 of 6
4

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

Motions for Summary Judgment or Summary Adjudication

Prior to filing a motion for summary judgment or motion for summary adjudication the parties 

are ORDERED to meet, in person or by telephone, and confer to discuss the issues to be raised in the 

motion. 

The purpose of meeting shall be to: 1) avoid filing motions for summary judgment where a 

question of fact exists; 2) determine whether the respondent agrees that the motion has merit in whole 

or in part; 3) discuss whether issues can be resolved without the necessity of briefing; 4) narrow the 

issues for review by the court; 5) explore the possibility of settlement before the parties incur the 

expense of briefing a summary judgment motion; and 6) to arrive at a joint statement of undisputed 

facts.

The moving party shall initiate the meeting and provide a draft of the joint statement of 

undisputed facts. In addition to the requirements of Local Rule 260, the moving party shall file a joint 

statement of undisputed facts.

In the notice of motion, the moving party shall certify that the parties have met and conferred 

as ordered above and set forth a statement of good cause for the failure to meet and confer.

6. Mandatory Settlement Conference

District Judge Dale A. Drozd requires the parties to pursue settlement by private mediation, a 

settlement conference with the Court, or other formal dispute resolution processes before the case may 

proceed to trial. A Settlement Conference has not been scheduled. The parties may contact Courtroom 

Deputy Esther Valdez at (559) 499-5788 to schedule a settlement conference. If a settlement 

conference is set, the parties are advised that 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.

7. Pretrial Conference

This Court sets a pretrial conference for January 24, 2022, at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 5 and 

will be heard before the Honorable Dale A. Drozd, United States District Judge. The parties are 

directed to file a joint pretrial statement which complies with the requirements of this Court’s Local 

Rule 281. In addition, the joint pretrial statement should include a brief factual summary and an 

Case 1:19-cv-01739-KES-BAM Document 26 Filed 07/22/20 Page 4 of 6
5

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

agreed upon neutral statement of the case. An additional copy of the joint pretrial statement, carefully 

prepared and executed by all counsel, shall be electronically filed in CM/ECF and shall be e-mailed in 

Microsoft Word format to dadorders@caed.uscourts.gov.

The parties’ attention is directed to this Court’s Local Rules 281 and 282. The parties must 

identify all exhibits and witnesses, including those for rebuttal and/or impeachment purposes. No 

exhibit or witness other than those listed in the joint pretrial statement and included in the Pretrial 

Order may be used at trial. This Court will insist upon strict compliance with those rules.

At the pretrial conference, the Court will set deadlines, among others, to file motions in limine, 

final witness lists, exhibits, jury instructions, objections, and other trial documents.

8. Trial

Pursuant to the Standing Order in Light of Ongoing Judicial Emergency in the Eastern District 

of California (Doc. 9), no trial date is scheduled in this civil action. Any party that believes exigent or 

extraordinary circumstances justify an exception to the Standing Order in their case may file a motion 

seeking the setting of a trial date. Such motions shall not exceed five pages in length and must 

establish truly extraordinary circumstances. Even where such a showing is made, the parties are 

forewarned that the District Judge may simply be unable to accommodate them in the light of the 

court’s criminal caseload. (Doc. 9 at 4, n. 6.) 

9. Effect of This Order

This order represents the best estimate of the court and counsel as to the agenda most suitable 

to dispose of this case. 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 status conference.

The dates set in this Order are considered to be firm and will not be modified absent a 

showing of good cause even if the request to modify is made by stipulation. 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.

Case 1:19-cv-01739-KES-BAM Document 26 Filed 07/22/20 Page 5 of 6
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

The failure to comply with this order may result in the imposition of sanctions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 22, 2020 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-01739-KES-BAM Document 26 Filed 07/22/20 Page 6 of 6