Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-01722/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-01722-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
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

05cv1722 LAB (JMA)

MICHAEL J. AGUIRRE, City Attorney

DONALD F. SHANAHAN, Deputy City Attorney

California State Bar No. 49777

Office of The City Attorney

Civil Division

1200 Third Avenue, Suite 1100

San Diego, California 92101

Telephone: (619) 533-5800

Facsimile: (619) 533-5856

Attorneys for Defendants

City of San Diego, Stephanie Rose, Elias Rodriguez,

Andrea Wood, Timothy Long, Phillip Ellsworth

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHRISTOPHER NEISEN, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

SERGEANT ROSE, OFFICER )

RODRIGUEZ, OFFICER WOOD, )

OFFICER MARVEL, OFFICER LONG, )

OFFICER ELLSWORTH, CITY OF SAN )

DIEGO, AND DOE1 through DOE 100, )

inclusive, )

)

Defendants )

____________________________________)

Case No. 05cv1722 LAB (JMA)

STIPULATION AND SCHEDULING

ORDER

The undersigned parties, in recognition of the filing of an amended complaint in the

above-captioned case, hereby stipulate to an extension of discovery dates and present to the court

a proposed scheduling order.

Plaintiff, Christopher Neisen, filed his ten count complaint on November 30, 2005,

against six individual San Diego Police officers and the City of San Diego, alleging fourth

amendment violations stemming from a July 10, 2004 arrest of Mr. Neisen. The defendant

officers, Sergeant Rose, Officer Rodriguez, Officer Wood, Officer Marvel, Officer Long and

Officer Ellsworth, were all present at the scene of the incident. The complaint set forth federal

and state claims, including, inter alia, excessive force, false arrest, battery and conspiracy.

On July 19, 2006, plaintiff filed his motion for leave to file an amended complaint,

adding seven additional San Diego Police officers, Officer Charles Davis, Officer Raul Flores,

Case 3:05-cv-01722-LAB-JMA Document 36 Filed 01/08/07 Page 1 of 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

2

05cv1722 LAB (JMA)

Officer Tim Saelens, Officer Alfred Savage, Officer Jeffrey Sferra, Officer Robert Tryron and

Officer Gerry Waclawek, to the complaint. In addition to adding seven individual defendants,

plaintiff included a Monell claim in the First Amended Complaint against the City of San Diego

and changed the malicious prosecution claim from a common law State claim in the original

complaint to a malicious prosecution claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 in the First Amended

Complaint.

The hearing date was set for October 2, 2006. The Defendants filed their opposition to

the motion to file an amended complaint on September 14, 2006. The District Court issued its

order granting plaintiff’s motion to file an amended complaint on October 17, 2006. Discovery

was delayed in large part because of the uncertainty of whether the motion for leave to file the

amended complaint would be granted.

Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint in the District Court on November 1, 2006.

Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(1)(A), the defendants had twenty days from the filing

and service of the amended complaint in which to file their answers. Thus, at the very earliest,

the defendants’ answers would be due on November 21, 2006, assuming service was complete.

During the interval, evidence was presented to plaintiff concerning the seven new

individual defendants’ lack of involvement in plaintiff’s arrest. Based upon this evidence,

plaintiff has stipulated to the dismissal of these defendants from the case. However, because of

the four month hiatus between the filing of the motion for leave to file an amended complaint

and the District Court Order granting the motion, the discovery process was limited.

In addition to the eight new individual defendants, plaintiff has now included a Monell

claim against the City of San Diego, charging that it is the custom and practice of the City of San

Diego in excessive force cases to generate false documents in order to cover up for misconduct,

fail to properly discipline officers, fail to properly investigate, and fail to take remedial action

against officers who use excessive force. These allegations require extensive discovery by all

parties in order to properly prepare their respective cases.

 Given the extensive delay, as well as the addition of new claims, extensive discovery,

including interrogatories, requests for admission and requests for production, will be required in

Case 3:05-cv-01722-LAB-JMA Document 36 Filed 01/08/07 Page 2 of 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

3

05cv1722 LAB (JMA)

order to litigate this case. Parties will need additional time to discover the facts relating to the

new charges and prepare dispositive motions. 

For the above cited reasons, the parties herein respectfully request the Scheduling Order

dated May 9, 2006, be vacated and a new order issued to include the suggested dates.

1. Mandatory telephonic Status Conference January 18, 2007, at 9:30 a.m.

2. Plaintiff’s expert disclosures required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) shall be served

on all parties on or before January 19, 2007. Defendants’ expert disclosures required by Fed. R.

Civ. P. 26(a)(2) shall be served on all parties on or before February 16, 2007. Any contradictory

or rebuttal information shall be disclosed on or before March 9, 2007.

3. All discovery shall be completed by all parties on or before April 6, 2007. 

4. All motions, other than motions to amend or join parties, or motions in limine,

shall be filed on or before May 7, 2007.

5. The Mandatory Settlement Conference, currently set for April 11, 2007, at 10:00

a.m. is vacated. Instead, the Mandatory Settlement Conference will be held in Magistrate Judge

Adler’s chambers on August 6, 2007, at 2:00 p.m. Mandatory Settlement Conference briefs

shall be submitted directly to Magistrate Judge Adler’s chambers not later than July 30, 2007.

6. Counsel shall comply with the pretrial disclosure requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P.

26(a)(3) on or before August 24, 2007.

7. Counsel shall confer and take the action required by Local Rule 16.1(f)(4) on or

before August 31, 2007.

8. The Proposed Final Pretrial Conference Order, including written objections, if

any, to any party’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3) pretrial disclosures, shall be prepared, served, and

lodged with the Clerk’s office on or before September 7, 2007, and shall be in the form

prescribed in Local Rule 16.1.(f)(6).

9. The Final Pretrial Conference is scheduled in the chambers of the Honorable

Larry Alan Burns on September 17, 2007, at 10:45 a.m. The trial date will be assigned by

Judge Burns at the pretrial conference. 

/ / /

Case 3:05-cv-01722-LAB-JMA Document 36 Filed 01/08/07 Page 3 of 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

4

05cv1722 LAB (JMA)

10. NO FURTHER EXTENSIONS OF TIME WILL BE GRANTED.

Dated: November 28, 2006 MICHAEL J. AGUIRRE, City Attorney

 By / S / 

 Donald F. Shanahan

 Deputy City Attorney

 

 Attorneys for Defendants,

 City of San Diego, Stephanie Rose, Elias

 Rodriguez, Andrea Wood, Timothy Long,

 Phillip Ellsworth

 

Dated: November 28, 2006 LAW OFFICES OF BLAKE HORWITZ

 By / S / 

 Tali K. Albukerk

 

 Attorneys for Plaintiff,

 Christopher Neisen

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 8, 2007

 

Jan M. Adler

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-01722-LAB-JMA Document 36 Filed 01/08/07 Page 4 of 4