Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-00202/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-00202-0/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GIOVANELLA AVILEZ-URBINA,

Plaintiff,

v.

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:23–cv–202–DAD–KJN PS

PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER

READ THIS ORDER CAREFULLY. IT CONTAINS IMPORTANT DATES THAT 

THE COURT WILL STRICTLY ENFORCE AND WITH WHICH ALL COUNSEL AND 

PARTIES MUST COMPLY. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE TERMS OF THIS ORDER 

MAY RESULT IN THE IMPOSITION OF MONETARY AND ALL OTHER APPROPRIATE 

SANCTIONS, INCLUDING DISMISSAL OR AN ORDER OF JUDGMENT.

On June 29, 2023, the assigned district judge entered a scheduling order in this matter. 

(ECF No. 12.) Since then, plaintiff has elected to proceed without the aid of counsel, and the 

matter was reassigned to the undersigned and a different district judge. (ECF Nos. 13-23.) For 

clarity, the court now reissues a scheduling order, adopting most (but not all) of the previously-set 

dates.1

1 This matter was referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Local Rule 

302(c)(21).

Case 2:23-cv-00202-DAD-CSK Document 24 Filed 02/06/24 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

24

25

26

27

28

2

SERVICE OF PROCESS/ JOINDER OF PARTIES/AMENDMENT OF PLEADINGS

All named defendants have been served and have answered plaintiff’s complaint. No 

further service, joinder of parties, or amendments to pleadings is permitted except with leave of 

court, good cause having been shown.

JURISDICTION/VENUE

Jurisdiction and venue are undisputed, and are hereby found to be proper.

INITIAL DISCLOSURES

Given that this case has been in the discovery phase since June of 2023, the court 

presumes the parties have already exchanged initial disclosures. To the extent that the parties 

have not already done so, the parties shall exchange initial disclosures within thirty days of this 

order. Such disclosures shall include production of any documents and other items required by 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A)(ii) that are within a party’s possession, custody, or control. 

DISCOVERY DEADLINES, PROCEDURES FOR DISCOVERY DISPUTES

All non-expert discovery shall be completed2 by December 27, 2024. Any discoveryrelated motions must conform to the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 

this court’s Local Rules, including Local Rule 251. The incoming magistrate judge generally 

hears civil motions on Tuesdays at 10:00 a.m.

Prior to filing any discovery-related motions, the parties are required to meet and confer in 

good faith in an attempt to resolve their discovery disputes informally and without court 

intervention. Such meet and confer shall take place in person, or at a minimum, via a telephonic 

conference. The mere exchange of letters or e-mails alone is not sufficient. As part of their joint 

statement related to a discovery motion submitted pursuant to Local Rule 251, the parties shall 

also specifically outline: (a) what meet-and-confer efforts were undertaken; (b) when and where 

such discussions took place; (c) who was present; and (d) how the parties’ disputes were 

narrowed as a result of such discussions. Failure to comply with these requirements may result in 

2 “Completed” means (1) all discovery shall have been conducted so that all depositions have 

been taken and (2) any disputes related to discovery shall have been resolved by appropriate order 

if necessary and, where discovery has been ordered, the order has been complied with.

Case 2:23-cv-00202-DAD-CSK Document 24 Filed 02/06/24 Page 2 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

24

25

26

27

28

3

summary denial of any discovery motion. 

The court strongly encourages the use of informal telephonic discovery conferences with 

the court in lieu of formal discovery motion practice. The procedures and conditions for 

requesting and conducting such an informal telephonic discovery conference are outlined in 

Judge Newman’s “Order re Informal Telephonic Conferences re Discovery Disputes,” posted on 

Judge Newman’s page on the court’s website. 

Additionally, and subject to availability, the court will rule on disputes encountered at oral 

depositions so as to avoid them from breaking down. In the course of the deposition, the parties 

may contact Judge Newman’s courtroom deputy clerk at (916) 930-4187 to inquire regarding 

Judge Newman’s availability. However, the parties are cautioned that these informal procedures 

are not to be abused, and the court may impose appropriate sanctions on an offending party or 

parties, even in the course of informal discovery conferences. 

EXPERT DISCLOSURES AND DISCOVERY

The parties shall disclose any expert witnesses in accordance with the specifications of 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) no later than November 1, 2024. Any rebuttal expert disclosures shall be 

made in accordance with the specifications of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) no later than November 

15, 2024. Expert disclosures shall be filed with the court and served upon all other parties. All 

expert discovery shall be completed (see fn. 3) by December 27, 2024. The same procedures for 

fact–discovery disputes applies to expert–discovery disputes.

An expert witness not timely disclosed will not be permitted to testify unless the party 

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

reasonably anticipated at the time that the expert disclosures were due; (b) the court and opposing 

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

proffered for deposition. Failure to provide the information required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) 

along with the expert disclosures may lead to preclusion of the expert’s testimony or other 

appropriate sanctions.

///

///

Case 2:23-cv-00202-DAD-CSK Document 24 Filed 02/06/24 Page 3 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

24

25

26

27

28

4

LAW AND MOTION

Dispositive motions may be filed following the procedures of Local Rule 230. All law 

and motion, including motions for summary judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56, shall be filed by 

February 25, 2025 and completed (i.e. heard) by April 22, 2025. Counsel and/or parties 

proceeding without counsel 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, including, 

but not limited to, Local Rule 230. The incoming magistrate judge generally hears civil motions 

on Tuesdays at 10:00 a.m. This paragraph does not preclude later-filed motions for continuances, 

motions in limine related to trial, temporary restraining orders, or other emergency applications, 

for which the court may set a special briefing schedule, if necessary or appropriate. 

ALL PURELY LEGAL ISSUES ARE TO BE RESOLVED BY TIMELY PRETRIAL 

MOTION. The purpose of law and motion is to narrow and refine the legal issues raised by the 

case, as well as to dispose of those issues that are susceptible to resolution without trial by pretrial 

motion. To accomplish that purpose, the parties need to identify and fully research the issues 

presented by the case, then examine those issues in light of the evidence obtained 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 consistent with the law and 

motion cutoff set forth above. Conversely, motions in limine are procedural devices designed to 

address the admissibility of evidence. THE COURT WILL LOOK WITH DISFAVOR UPON 

SUBSTANTIVE MOTIONS PRESENTED UNDER THE GUISE OF MOTIONS IN LIMINE 

AT THE TIME OF TRIAL.

FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE/TRIAL SETTING 

The final pretrial conference is set for September 23, 2025, at 1:30 p.m., before District 

Court Judge Dale A. Drozd by Zoom. Parties will receive a Zoom ID number and password for 

the final pretrial conference by email from Judge Drozd’s Courtroom Deputy Pete Buzo 

(PBuzo@caed.uscourts.gov). Any other interested parties or members of the public may access 

the conference telephonically by dialing 888−557−8511 and using access code 9683466, at the 

time of the conference. Because several matters may be set for the same afternoon, the parties 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-DAD-CSK Document 24 Filed 02/06/24 Page 4 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

24

25

26

27

28

5

will be notified in advance of the conference at what specific time the court anticipates calling 

their case so they can join the Zoom at that time.

The parties are directed to file a joint pretrial statement, carefully prepared and executed 

by all counsel, that complies with the requirements of this Local Rule 281 and Judge Drozd’s 

Standing Order. Counsel shall also email a copy of the joint pretrial statement in Word format to 

Judge Drozd’s chambers at dadorders@caed.uscourts.gov.

The parties’ attention is directed to Local Rules 281 and 282. This court will insist upon 

strict compliance with these rules. At the pretrial conference, the court will set deadlines to file 

trial documents, including motions in limine, trial briefs, and proposed jury voir dire, instructions, 

and verdict forms (where applicable).

JURY TRIAL

A jury trial is set for November 24, 2025, at 9:00 a.m., in Courtroom 4 before District 

Court Judge Dale A. Drozd. Trial is anticipated to last 3-5 court days.

Any objections to this pretrial scheduling order shall be filed within seven (7) days.

SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE

Should the parties wish to conduct a settlement conference with a magistrate judge, they 

are to contact the undersigned’s courtroom deputy clerk to inquire as to the availability of another 

magistrate judge for a settlement conference.

MODIFICATION OF THIS SCHEDULING ORDER

The parties are reminded that pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4), this 

order shall not be modified except by leave of court upon a showing of “good cause.” See

Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604 (9th Cir. 1992). Mere agreement by the 

parties pursuant to a stipulation does not constitute good cause. Nor does the unavailability of 

witnesses or counsel, except in extraordinary circumstances, constitute good cause.

Dated: February 6, 2024

aliv.202

Case 2:23-cv-00202-DAD-CSK Document 24 Filed 02/06/24 Page 5 of 5