Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-02231/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-02231-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans with Disabilities 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SCOTT JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

MARIE F. RAYMUS and CHARLENE 

MARIE PARRA,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:16-cv-2231 (WHO)

ORDER FOR CASE REASSIGNED TO 

VISITING JUDGE ORRICK AND 

SETTING INITIAL CASE

MANAGMENT CONFERENCE

This case has been reassigned to the Hon. William H. Orrick of the Northern District of 

California, who is serving as a visiting judge in the Eastern District of California.

Governing Rules and Procedures

The Eastern District of California Local Rules will govern this case, including EDCA 

Local Rule 271 (Voluntary Dispute Resolution Program), with the following exceptions:

Judge Orrick’s Standing Order

Counsel should review and follow Judge Orrick’s Standing Order for Civil Cases, 

available at https://cand.uscourts.gov/whoorders “Judge Orrick’s Standing Order Civil.”

Access Cases under the ADA

The Northern District of California’s General Order No. 56, governing Americans with 

Disabilities Act Access Litigation shall apply to this case. A copy of that General Order is 

attached and can also be found at https://cand.uscourts.gov/generalorders. 

Noticed Motions and Hearings

Law and Motion hearings will generally be held for the Eastern District cases on 

Wednesdays at 1:30 p.m. To reserve a hearing date, contact Judge Orrick’s Courtroom Deputy 

Jean Davis at 415-522-7171 or jean_davis@cand.uscourts.gov. Parties will be expected to appear 

telephonically for any hearing, unless both sides agree to appear in person in San Francisco and 

Case 2:16-cv-02231-WHO Document 7 Filed 10/13/16 Page 1 of 5
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

inform Courtroom Deputy Jean Davis of their intent to appear. Prior to the hearing, Judge Orrick 

may determine that a matter is appropriate for resolution on the papers and may vacate the hearing 

date.

Motions shall be noticed for hearing at least 35 days before the proposed hearing date. 

Any opposition to the motion shall be filed no later than 14 days after the motion was filed. Any 

reply shall be filed no later than 7 days after the opposition and in no event less than 14 days prior 

to the noticed hearing date. 

Discovery

If a discovery dispute arises, counsel shall follow Judge Orrick’s Joint Discovery Letter 

procedure, described in detail in his Standing Order. https://cand.uscourts.gov/whoorders “Judge 

Orrick’s Standing Order Civil.” EDCA Local Rules 251 and 302(c) do not apply to this case.

EDCA Local Rule 302(c)

EDCA Local Rule 302(c)’s designation of motions to be resolved by a Magistrate Judge 

does not apply in this case. Matters may be referred to a Magistrate Judge by Judge Orrick on a 

case-by-case basis.

Proposed Orders and Requests to Seal

All proposed orders and requests to seal required under the EDCA Local Rules shall be 

emailed to WHO_po@cand.uscourts.gov. For requests to seal, the request to seal, the proposed 

order, and all documents covered by the request shall be emailed in electronic form to 

WHO_po@cand.uscourts.gov. Do not file requests to seal or documents covered by requests to 

seal in paper at the EDCA or NDCA courthouses.

Initial Case Management Conference

A Case Management Conference will be held in this case on January 17, 2017 at 3:00 

p.m. Parties will be expected to appear telephonically, unless both sides agree to appear in person 

in Judge Orrick’s courtroom in San Francisco and notify Courtroom Deputy Jean Davis of their 

intent to appear. The parties’ Case Management Conference Statement shall follow the form of 

and address the issues specified in the Standing Order for All Judges of the Northern District of 

California (for Case Management). A copy of that Standing Order can be found at 

Case 2:16-cv-02231-WHO Document 7 Filed 10/13/16 Page 2 of 5
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

https://cand.uscourts.gov/whoorders “Standing Order for All Judges of the Northern District of 

California.”

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 13, 2016

______________________________________

WILLIAM H. ORRICK

United States District Judge

Case 2:16-cv-02231-WHO Document 7 Filed 10/13/16 Page 3 of 5
GENERAL ORDER No. 56 

AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT ACCESS LITIGATION 

In any action which asserts denial of a right of access protected by Titles II or III of the 

Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 USC §§ 12131-89, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 16, the Court ORDERS that the following shall apply: 

1. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), plaintiff shall forthwith complete 

service on all necessary defendants. A plaintiff who is unable to complete service on all 

necessary defendants within 63 days may, prior to the expiration of that period, file a Motion 

For Administrative Relief pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-11 requesting an extension of the 

schedule required by this Order. 

2. Initial disclosures required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a) shall be completed 

no later than 7 days prior to the joint inspection and review required by ¶3. For example, in a 

Title III action, if defendant intends to dispute liability based on the construction or alteration 

history of the subject premises, defendant shall disclose all information in defendant’s 

possession or control regarding the construction or alteration history of the subject premises. In 

a Title II action, if defendant intends to dispute liability based on overall programmatic 

compliance, a transition plan, or a self-evaluation plan, defendant shall disclose all information 

in defendant's possession or control regarding such programmatic compliance, transition plan, 

or self-evaluation plan. If plaintiff claims damages under California law, plaintiff shall include 

in the initial disclosures the damages computation required by Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(iii), but need 

not include attorney’s fees and costs. All other discovery and proceedings are STAYED unless 

the assigned judge orders otherwise. Notwithstanding any other provision of this General 

Order, any dispute concerning the adequacy of the Rule 26(a) disclosures may be submitted to 

the court under Civil Local Rule 7. 

3. No later than 105 days after filing the complaint, the parties and their counsel, 

accompanied by their experts if the parties so elect, shall meet in person at the subject premises. 

If plaintiff alleges only programmatic or policy violations, the parties and their counsel may 

meet in person at any mutually agreeable location. They shall jointly inspect the portions of the 

subject premises, and shall review any programmatic or policy issues, which are claimed to 

violate the Americans with Disabilities Act. 

4. At the joint inspection and review required under ¶3, or within 28 days thereafter, the 

parties, and their experts if the parties so elect, shall meet in person and confer regarding 

settlement of the action. The meet and confer obligation cannot be satisfied by telephone or by 

exchanging letters. At the conference, the parties shall discuss all claimed access violations. 

Plaintiff shall specify all claimed access violations and the corrective actions requested of 

defendant. With respect to each claimed violation, defendant shall specify whether defendant is 

willing to undertake the requested corrective actions or has an alternate proposal. If defendant 

claims any proposed corrective action is not readily achievable under Title III or otherwise 

required by law, defendant shall specify the factual basis for this claim. 

5. This General Order does not require any party to engage an expert. In simpler cases it 

may be possible for parties to reach agreement regarding corrective actions without engaging 

Case 2:16-cv-02231-WHO Document 7 Filed 10/13/16 Page 4 of 5
experts, o

prepared

expert as

6. If

provide d

demand

included

agreemen

statemen

plaintiff s

attorney 

7. If

agreemen

"Notice o

cand.usc

automati

to be sch

of Need f

shall hav

by this m

settlemen

of the ess

settlemen

condition

jurisdicti

8. If

Certificat

file a Mo

Managem

9. A

schedule

Rule 7-11

ADOPTE

AMEND

AMEND

AMEND

DATE: A

or without th

d, they shall 

ssistance, the

f the parties 

defendant w

for settleme

d in the Rule

nt regarding

nt of costs an

should prov

would prov

f within 42 d

nt on injunc

of Need for M

ourts.gov/a

ically referre

eduled as so

for Mediatio

ve the author

matter, includ

nt be reache

sential terms

nt should it n

ned upon fu

ion to enforc

f the case do

tion of ADR

tion for Adm

ment Confer

Any party wh

e set forth he

1. 

ED: June 2

DED: Febru

DED: Novem

DED: May 2

April 17, 2013

he preparati

be exchange

e Court enco

reach a tenta

with a statem

ent of the cas

26(a) disclo

g injunctive r

nd attorney’s

vide docume

vide in a billi

days from th

tive relief, o

Mediation” i

adr and on th

ed to mediat

oon as feasib

on is filed, un

rity to presid

ding request

d, the media

s of the settle

not be consu

ture conduc

ce that comp

es not resolv

R Session rep

ministrative

rence. 

ho wishes to

erein may fil

21, 2005 

uary 17, 2009

mber 5, 2009

29, 2012 

3 nunc pro tun

ion of writte

ed. In a case

ourages the p

ative agreem

ment of costs

se in its entir

sures). Plain

relief as a pr

s fees, and ad

entation and

ing statemen

e joint site in

r cannot sett

in the form s

he ECF webs

tion and the

ble, and in no

nless otherw

de over settl

ts for injunct

ator shall en

ement suffic

ummated ac

ct such as rem

ponent of the

ve at mediat

porting that t

Relief pursu

o be relieved

e a Motion f

9

nc May 29, 20

2 

en expert rep

which the p

parties to joi

ment on injun

and attorne

rety (includi

ntiff should n

recondition t

dditional da

d support for

nt to a client

nspection an

tle the dama

set forth on t

site, cand.us

ADR Progra

o event later

wise ordered

ement negot

tive relief, d

sure that the

cient to perm

cording to it

mediation, th

e settlement.

tion within 7

the mediatio

uant to Civil

d of any requ

for Administ

 FOR

012 

CLAU

CHIE

ports. If writ

parties concl

intly engage

nctive relief

ey's fees incu

ing any addi

not require e

to providing

amages. If re

r its attorney

t. 

nd review, th

ages and fee

the Court's A

scourts.gov/

am will arra

r that 90 day

d by the assig

tiations that

amages and

e parties ma

mit any party

ts terms. Sho

he assigned

.

7 days of the

on process is

l Local Rule

uirement of t

trative Relie

R THE COUR

UDIA WILK

EF JUDGE 

tten expert re

ude would b

e an expert. 

f, plaintiff sh

urred to date

itional dama

execution of

g defendant

equested by

y’s fees simil

he parties ca

s claims, pla

ADR Interne

/ecf. The ma

ange for a me

ys from the d

gned judge.

t address all

d attorney’s f

ake a written

y to move to

ould any set

 judge will r

e mediator's

s concluded,

7-11 request

this order or

ef pursuant t

RT: 

KEN 

eports are 

benefit from

hall forthwith

e, and make

ages not 

f a formal 

with the 

defendant, 

lar to what a

annot reach a

aintiff shall f

et site, 

atter will the

ediation sess

date the Not

The mediato

issues prese

fees. Should

n or audio re

o enforce the

ttlement be 

retain 

filing of a 

, plaintiff sha

ting a Case 

r to adjust th

to Civil Loca

m

h

a 

an 

an 

file a 

en be 

sion 

tice 

or 

ented 

 a 

ecord 

e

all 

he 

al 

Case 2:16-cv-02231-WHO Document 7 Filed 10/13/16 Page 5 of 5