Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02186/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02186-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983cv Civil Rights Act - Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights

---

I 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

II 

12 

13 

14 

IS 

16 

c. 0" 2 c;, \ 5 ~\r\H 20 1 n ~" 

,.".'y. I,' ' .. \ 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

AMERICAN NEWS AND 

INFORMATION SERVICE, INC.; et 

aI., 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

WILLIAM D. GORE; et aI., 

Defendant. 

CASE NO. 12cv2186-BEN (KSC) 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' 

MOTION FOR EARLY NEUTRAL 

EVALUATION (ENE) AND CASE 

MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE 

(CMC) 

[Doc. 72] 

17 On March 24, 20 IS, the plaintiffs filed a document entitled "Consent Request 

18 for Early Neutral Evaluation (ENE) and Case Management Evaluation (CME)." [Doc. 

19 72] In this document, the plaintiffs request that this Court schedule an Early Neutral 

20 Evaluation ("ENE") and Case Management Conference ("CMC"). !d. at 3. This Court 

21 construes the plaintiffs' filing as a Motion for an ENE and CMC. The plaintiffs' 

22 Motion indicates that the defendants consent to the request. !d. However, because a 

23 Motion to Dismiss is currently pending before the District Court [Doc. 65] and a 

24 substantial number of defendants have not answered the Third Amended Complaint, 

25 the plaintiffs' Motion is DENIED. 

26 II 

27 / / 

28 II 

- 1 - 12cv2186-BEN (KSC) 

Case 3:12-cv-02186-BEN-KSC Document 73 Filed 03/26/15 Page 1 of 5
" 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

A. Procedural Posture 

The original Complaint was filed on September 6, 2012, alleging violations of 

42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988 against nine named defendants and numerous "John Doe" 

defendants. [Doc. 1] On October 2, 2012, defendant County of San Diego and 

individual defendants employed by the County ("County defendants") filed a Motion 

to Dismiss the Complaint for failure to state a claim. [Doc. 24] On October 9,2012, 

defendant City of San Diego and an individual defendant employed by the City ("City 

defendants") filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint. [Doc. 25] On March 25, 2013, 

the District Court granted both Motions to Dismiss with leave to amend. [Doc. 31] 

On April 15, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint raising civil 

rights claims against the same defendants. [Doc. 33] On April 24, 2013, the City 

defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint. [Doc. 35] On April 

29, 2013, the County defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the First Amended 

Complaint. [Doc. 37] After a hearing on the Motions on June 24, 2013 [Doc. 44], the 

plaintiffs filed a Notice and Motion to file a Second Amended Complaint. [Docs. 47, 

48] The District Courtl granted the plaintiffs' Motion for leave to file a Second 

Amended Complaint on January 14,2014. [Doc. 52] 

The plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint was filed on January 14,2014, again 

alleging civil rights claims against the same defendants. [Doc. 53] The County 

defendants and the City defendants filed separate Motions to Dismiss the Second 

Amended Complaint on January 29, 2014. [Docs. 54, 56] The District Court issued an 

Order on September 18, 2014, granting in part and denying in part the County 

defendants' Motion to Dismiss, and granting the City defendants' Motion to dismiss, 

24 with leave to amend. [Doc. 63] 

25 On October 6, 2014, the plaintiffs filed their Third Amended Complaint. [Doc. 

26 64] The Third Amended Complaint alleged three counts of civil rights violations 

27 

28 1 On July 2, 20 13'.-.District Judge Irma E. Gonzalez recused from the case, and 

District Judge Roger T. tlenitez was assigned. [Doc. 45] 

-2- l2cv2l86-BEN (KSC) 

Case 3:12-cv-02186-BEN-KSC Document 73 Filed 03/26/15 Page 2 of 5
1 against the County defendants.2 [Doc. 64] Count One ofthe Third Amended Complaint 

2 alleges a claim of retaliatory government action against defendants Gore and Caldwell. 

3 [Doc. 64, p. 36] Count Two alleges a claim of failure to train against defendants 

4 County of San Diego and Gore. Id. at pp. 38-39. Count Three alleges a false arrest 

5 claim against defendants Allensworth, Breneman and Proctor. [Doc. 64, pp. 41-42] On 

6 October 17,2014, defendants Allensworth, Breneman and Proctor filed a Motion to 

7 Dismiss Count Three of the Third Amended Complaint. [Doc. 65] This Motion is 

8 currently pending before the District Court. Also on October 17, 2014, defendants 

9 Gore, Caldwell, County of San Diego, and San Diego Sheriffs Department filed an 

10 Answer to Counts One and Two ofthe Third Amended Complaint. [Doc. 67] On March 

11 24,2015, the plaintiffs filed the instant Motion requesting an ENE and CMC. [Doc. 72] 

12 B. Discussion 

13 Civil Rule 16.1 of the Local Rules for the Southern District of California governs 

14 pre-trial proceedings in this district, including the setting of Early Neutral Evaluation 

15 and Case Management Conferences. Generally, ENE conferences are to be set within 

16 45 days ofthe filing of an answer. CIV. L. R. 16.l(c)(I). However, "[a]tthe discretion 

17 of a judge assigned to the case, ENE and case management conferences need not be set 

18 in ... [c lases in which a substantial number of defendants have not answered[.]" CIV. 

19 L. R. 16.1 (e)( 5). The reason for this exception is to promote the efficiency and 

20 economy of both this Court and the parties. In this case, while defendants County 0 

21 San Diego, Gore and Caldwell have answered the Third Amended Complaint [Doc. 

22 67], defendants Allensworth, Breneman and Proctor have not. The latter defendants 

23 have filed a Motion to Dismiss the only count of the Third Amended Complaint in 

24 which they are named, which is pending before the District Court. [Doc. 65] The 

25 outcome of the Motion to Dismiss may determine which causes of action survive and 

26 whether Allensworth, Breneman and Proctor remain parties in the case. Since this 

27 

28 2 The City defendants were not named in the Third Amended Complaint, and 

were subsequently terminated from the case. See dkt. [12cv2186-BEN (KSC)] 

- 3 - 12cv2186-BEN (KSC) 

Case 3:12-cv-02186-BEN-KSC Document 73 Filed 03/26/15 Page 3 of 5
1 Court's Chambers Rules require all parties to personally appear at the ENE conference 

2 legally and factually prepared to discuss all claims, it would be imprudent to schedule 

3 the conference before the pleadings are settled. 

4 The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure also dictate this result. Holding an ENE 

5 and CMC at this juncture would have the practical effect of commencing discovery. 

6 See CIY. L. R. 16.1 (d). This Court is charged with interpreting all the Rules, including 

7 Rule 26(f), to ensure the "just, speedy, and inexpensive determination" of the case. 

8 FED. R. CIv. P. 1. Since a motion to dismiss is now pending before the District Court, 

9 discovery at this point would be inefficient and ineffective, as one of the three causes 

10 of action may be dismissed, and some of the parties may be excused from the litigation. 

11 As Magistrate Judge Bartick opined in similar circumstances, "the Court is concerned 

12 that allowing some discovery now will lead to duplicative efforts, including multiple 

13 depositions of the same witnesses, and potential discovery disputes between the parties 

14 regarding whether certain discovery is or is not impacted by the motion to dismiss." 

15 Azco Biotech Inc. v. Qiagen, N. V, 12cv2599-BEN (DHB), 2013 WL 3283841, at *3 

16 (S.D. Cal. June 26, 2013). This ruling is in keeping with numerous other courts, which 

17 have denied parties' requests to expedite discovery on the same grounds when 

18 potentially dispositive motions are pending. Wilcox Indus. Corp. v. Hansen, 279 

19 F.R.D. 64,71 (D.N.H. 2012); Phillips v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 08cv13978, 2009 

20 WL 2058582, at *1 (E.D. Mich. July 13,2009); Batiste v. Bonin, 06-1352, 2007 WL 

21 1772010, at *1 (W.D. La. June 15,2007); Rupp v. Transcon. Ins. Co., 07cv333-TC 

22 (PMW), 2008 WL 3193069, at * 1 (D. Utah Aug. 6, 2008). 

23 II 

24 II 

25 II 

26 II 

27 II 

28 II 

-4- 12cv2186-BEN (KSC) 

Case 3:12-cv-02186-BEN-KSC Document 73 Filed 03/26/15 Page 4 of 5
1 C. Conclusion 

2 For these reasons, the plaintiffs' Motion to schedule an ENE and CMC while a 

3 Motion to Dismiss is pending is DENIED without prejudice_ The parties are instructed 

4 to contact this Court's Chambers within three court days of receiving a ruling on the 

5 Motion to Dismiss to schedule the ENE conference_ 

6 IT IS SO ORDERED_ 

7 

Date: March U/ ,2015 8 

9 

10 

States JVlagistrate Judge 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

- 5 - 12cv2186-BEN (KSC) 

Case 3:12-cv-02186-BEN-KSC Document 73 Filed 03/26/15 Page 5 of 5