Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00521/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00521-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 751
Nature of Suit: Labor - Family and Medical Leave Act
Cause of Action: 05:704 Labor Litigation

---

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

SARAH NOVO,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF SACRAMENTO, 

ANGELIQUE ASHBY,

Defendants.

No. 2:13-cv-00521-MCE-AC

ORDER

On November 4, 2016, after finding that Plaintiff had waived her right to 

participate in a Joint Statement of Disputed and Undisputed Facts (“Joint Statement”)

because her counsel failed to comply with several deadlines for doing so, the Court 

issued its Amended Final Pretrial Order (ECF No. 115). That Order adopted the 

unilateral statement submitted by the defense without input from Plaintiff’s counsel, 

Robert Koehler. On November 14, 2016, Mr. Koehler filed a Motion to Vacate the 

Amended Final Pretrial Order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1), which is

now before the Court for adjudication. In that Motion, Koehler contends that illness on 

his part prevented him from complying with the deadlines in question. Koehler argues 

that these health concerns entitle Plaintiff to relief, on grounds of excusable neglect, 

from the Court’s ruling foreclosing her participation in the Joint Statement. 

Case 2:13-cv-00521-MCE-AC Document 123 Filed 01/26/17 Page 1 of 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

2

According to Plaintiff, barring her from providing input into the facts and issues to 

be tried “eviscerates [her] causes of action and claims against the defendants” and 

“amounts to a ‘terminating sanction.’” Mot., ECF No. 116-1, 2:3-6. As the Court set forth 

in its Amended Final Pretrial Order, however, Plaintiff’s failure to submit her portion of 

the Joint Statement until after one continuance had expired, and until after a second 

pending request for additional request had also passed, constituted a waiver of her right 

to participate.

Plaintiff correctly cites Rule 60(b) for the proposition that the Court may 

nonetheless vacate its Amended Final Pretrial Order upon a showing of good cause 

provided that her own culpable conduct, if any, is taken into account along with any 

resulting prejudice to the nonmoving party, here Defendants. See, e.g., Falk v. Allen, 

739 F.2d 461 463 (9th Cir. 1984). Through the instant Motion, Plaintiff’s counsel has 

presented additional details about how his health prevented him from complying with the 

Court’s directives. Mr. Koehler suffers from Wegener’s Disease, a chronic, 

unpredictable inflammation of blood vessels that, in turn, slows blood flow to crucial 

organs. Although Mr. Koehler previously disclosed that he suffered a relapse of that 

disease in August of 2016 which necessitated therapeutic infusion therapy, in support of 

his present Motion Plaintiff has now attached a statement from his primary care 

physician, David H. Lehman, M.D., which attests that due to his condition Koehler was 

“unable to meet his duties as an attorney from mid-August until mid-October 2016.” 

November 14, 2016 Letter from Dr. Lehman, Ex. 9 to Decl. of Robert Koehler, ECF 

No. 116-2. This certifies Mr. Koehler as unable to work during the entire period at issue, 

from the time his portion of the Joint Statement was initially due on September 15, 2016,

to the time it was belatedly submitted on October 17, 2016.

The Court is concerned about both Mr. Koehler’s pattern of selectively being 

unable to attend to his various duties as counsel and whether he is really willing and 

able to prosecute this case. Dr. Lehman’s letter nonetheless constitutes good cause as 

to why counsel failed to timely participate in the preparation of the Joint Statement

Case 2:13-cv-00521-MCE-AC Document 123 Filed 01/26/17 Page 2 of 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

3

during the period in question. Moreover, the health conditions that apparently prevented 

him from doing so were hardly the fault of his client and there consequently is no 

showing that Plaintiff bore any culpability for the resulting delay. Finally, since witness 

and exhibit lists have already been finalized, and since in limine motions have already 

been adjudicated, permitting Plaintiff to participate in the Joint Statement now should not 

prejudice Defendants since the March 27, 2017, jury trial in this matter is more than two 

months away.

Given the foregoing, Plaintiff’s Motion (ECF No. 116) is GRANTED only insofar as 

Plaintiff will be allowed to now participate in the preparation of a Joint Statement of 

Disputed and Undisputed Facts and Issues that, if timely filed, will supersede the 

unilateral statement previously submitted by the defense (ECF No. 105). The parties are 

directed to meet and confer as to the preparation of a Joint Statement and to submit said 

statement to the Court not later than February 8, 2017. No further extensions of time will 

be granted. If no Joint Statement is filed by February 8, 2017, the currently operative 

Amended Pretrial Order will remain in effect and will govern at trial. If a Joint Statement

is timely filed, however, the Court will issue a Second Amended Final Pretrial Statement 

incorporating the parties’ new submission. Aside from the resulting changes to the 

Undisputed Facts, Disputed Factual Issues, and Disputed Evidentiary Issues portions of 

the Amended Final Pretrial Order, all other provisions contained within said Order and its 

attachments shall remain in full force and effect.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 25, 2017

Case 2:13-cv-00521-MCE-AC Document 123 Filed 01/26/17 Page 3 of 3