Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00010/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00010-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 15:5(a) Fair Labor Standards Act

---

1

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID COUCH,

 Plaintiff,

v.

MORGAN STANLEY & CO, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1: 14-CV-00010 - LJO - JLT

SCHEDULING ORDER (Fed. R. Civ. P. 16)

Pleading Amendment Deadline: 8/25/2014

Discovery Deadlines:

Initial Disclosures: 6/16/2014

Non-Expert: 2/16/2015

Expert: 4/20/2015

Mid-Discovery Status Conference: 

 1/15/2015 at 8:30 a.m.

Non-Dispositive Motion Deadlines:

Filing: 5/4/2015

Hearing: 6/1/2015

Dispositive Motion Deadlines: 

Filing: 6/16/2015

Hearing: 7/28/2015

Settlement Conference:

11/19/2014 at 1:30 p.m.

 510 19th Street, Bakersfield, CA

Pre-Trial Conference:

9/22/2015 at 8:30 a.m.

Courtroom 4

Trial: 11/17/2015 at 8:30 a.m.

 Courtroom 4

 Jury trial: 5-7 days

 

Case 1:14-cv-00010-LJO-JLT Document 28 Filed 06/09/14 Page 1 of 8
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

I. Date of Scheduling Conference

June 9, 2014.

II. Appearances of Counsel

Deborah Klar appeared on behalf of Plaintiff.

Mary Dollarhide and Haley Morrison appeared on behalf of Defendant.

III. Magistrate Judge Consent: 

Notice of Congested Docket and Court Policy of Trailing

Due to the District Judges’ heavy caseload, the newly adopted policy of the Fresno Division of 

the Eastern District is to trail all civil cases. The parties are hereby notified that for a trial date set 

before a District Judge, the parties will trail indefinitely behind any higher priority criminal or older 

civil case set on the same date until a courtroom becomes available. The trial date will not be reset to a 

continued date.

The Magistrate Judges’ availability is far more realistic and accommodating to parties than that 

of the U.S. District Judges who carry the heaviest caseloads in the nation and who must prioritize 

criminal and older civil cases over more recently filed civil cases. A United States Magistrate Judge 

may conduct trials, including entry of final judgment, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 73, and Local Rule 305. Any appeal from a judgment entered by a United States 

Magistrate Judge is taken directly to the United States Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit. 

The Fresno Division of the Eastern District of California, whenever possible, is utilizing United 

States Article III District Court Judges from throughout the nation as Visiting Judges. Pursuant to the 

Local Rules, Appendix A, such reassignments will be random, and the parties will receive no advance 

notice before their case is reassigned to an Article III District Court Judge from outside of the Eastern 

District of California. 

Therefore, the parties are directed to consider consenting to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction to 

conduct all further proceedings, including trial. Within 10 days of the date of this order, counsel 

SHALL file a consent/decline form (provided by the Court at the inception of this case) indicating 

whether they will consent to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge.

///

Case 1:14-cv-00010-LJO-JLT Document 28 Filed 06/09/14 Page 2 of 8
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

IV. Pleading Amendment Deadline

Any requested pleading amendments are ordered to be filed, either through a stipulation or 

motion to amend, no later than August 25, 2014.

V. Discovery Plan and Cut-Off Date

The Court accepts the parties’ agreement, as stated in the joint statement (Doc. 26 at 8-9), 

that the uncontested facts set forth in the joint statement are deemed proven. No further 

evidence need be provided as to these stipulated facts.

The parties are ordered to exchange the initial disclosures required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) 

on or before June 16, 2014.

The parties are ordered to complete all discovery pertaining to non-experts on or before 

February 16, 2015, and all discovery pertaining to experts on or before April 20, 2015.

The parties are directed to disclose all expert witnesses, in writing, on or before March 2, 2015, 

and to disclose all rebuttal experts on or before March 23, 2015. The written designation of retained 

and non-retained experts shall be made pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 26(a)(2), (A), (B), and (C) 

and shall include all information required thereunder. Failure to designate experts in compliance 

with this order may result in the Court excluding the testimony or other evidence offered through such 

experts that are not disclosed pursuant to this order. The provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4) and (5) 

shall apply to all discovery relating to experts and their opinions. Experts must be fully prepared to be 

examined on all subjects and opinions included in the designation. Failure to comply will result in the 

imposition of sanctions, which may include striking the expert designation and preclusion of expert 

testimony.

The provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e) regarding a party's duty to timely supplement 

disclosures and responses to discovery requests will be strictly enforced.

A mid-discovery status conference is scheduled for January 15, 2015 at 8:30 a.m. before the 

Honorable Jennifer L. Thurston, U.S. Magistrate Judge, located at 510 19th Street, Bakersfield, 

California, 93301. A Joint Mid-Discovery Status Conference Report, carefully prepared and executed 

by all counsel, shall be electronically filed in CM/ECF, one full week prior to the Conference, and shall 

be e-mailed, in Word format, to JLTorders@caed.uscourts.gov. The joint statement SHALL outline the 

Case 1:14-cv-00010-LJO-JLT Document 28 Filed 06/09/14 Page 3 of 8
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

discovery that has been completed and that which needs to be completed as well as any impediments to 

completing the discovery within the deadlines set forth in this order. Counsel may appear via

CourtCall, providing a written request to so appear is made to the Magistrate Judge's Courtroom Clerk 

no later than five court days before the noticed hearing date. 

VI. Pre-Trial Motion Schedule

All non-dispositive pre-trial motions, including any discovery motions, shall be filed no later 

than May 4, 2015, and heard on or before June 1, 2015. Non-dispositive motions are heard before the 

Honorable Jennifer L. Thurston, United States Magistrate Judge at the United States Courthouse in 

Bakersfield, California.

No written discovery motions shall be filed without the prior approval of the assigned 

Magistrate Judge. A party with a discovery dispute must first confer with the opposing party in a good 

faith effort to resolve by agreement the issues in dispute. If that good faith effort is unsuccessful, the 

moving party promptly shall seek a telephonic hearing with all involved parties and the Magistrate 

Judge. It shall be the obligation of the moving party to arrange and originate the conference call to the 

court. To schedule this telephonic hearing, the parties are ordered to contact Courtroom Deputy Clerk, 

Susan Hall at (661) 326-6620 or via email at SHall@caed.uscourts.gov. Counsel must comply with 

Local Rule 251 with respect to discovery disputes or the motion will be denied without prejudice 

and dropped from calendar.

In scheduling such motions, the Magistrate Judge may grant applications for an order shortening 

time pursuant to Local Rule 144(e). However, if counsel does not obtain an order shortening time, the 

notice of motion must comply with Local Rule 251. 

Counsel may appear and argue non-dispositive motions via CourtCall, providing a written 

request to so appear is made to the Magistrate Judge's Courtroom Clerk no later than five court days 

before the noticed hearing date. 

All dispositive pre-trial motions shall be filed no later than June 16, 2015, and heard no later 

than July 28, 2015, in Courtroom 4 at 8:30 a.m. before the Honorable Lawrence J. O'Neill, United 

States District Court Judge. In scheduling such motions, counsel shall comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 

and Local Rules 230 and 260.

Case 1:14-cv-00010-LJO-JLT Document 28 Filed 06/09/14 Page 4 of 8
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

VII. Motions for Summary Judgment or Summary Adjudication

Prior to filing a motion for summary judgment or motion for summary adjudication the parties 

are ORDERED to meet, in person or by telephone, and confer to discuss the issues to be raised in the 

motion at least 21 days before the filing of the motion.

The purpose of the meeting shall be to: 1) avoid filing motions for summary judgment where a 

question of fact exists; 2) determine whether the respondent agrees that the motion has merit in whole 

or in part; 3) discuss whether issues can be resolved without the necessity of briefing; 4) narrow the 

issues for review by the court; 5) explore the possibility of settlement before the parties incur the 

expense of briefing a summary judgment motion; 6) to arrive at a joint statement of undisputed facts.

The moving party shall initiate the meeting and provide a draft of the joint statement of 

undisputed facts. In addition to the requirements of Local Rule 260, the moving party shall file a 

joint statement of undisputed facts. 

In the notice of motion the moving party shall certify that the parties have met and conferred as 

ordered above, or set forth a statement of good cause for the failure to meet and confer. 

VIII. Pre-Trial Conference Date

September 22, 2015, at 8:30 a.m. in Courtroom 4 before Judge O'Neill.

The parties are ordered to file a Joint Pretrial Statement pursuant to Local Rule 281(a)(2). 

The parties are further directed to submit a digital copy of their pretrial statement in Word format,

directly to Judge O'Neill's chambers, by email at LJOorders@caed.uscourts.gov. 

Counsels' attention is directed to Rules 281 and 282 of the Local Rules of Practice for the 

Eastern District of California, as to the obligations of counsel in preparing for the pre-trial conference. 

The Court will insist upon strict compliance with those rules. In addition to the matters set forth in the 

Local Rules the Joint Pretrial Statement shall include a Joint Statement of the case to be used by the 

Court to explain the nature of the case to the jury during voir dire.

IX. Trial Date

November 17, 2015, at 8:30 a.m. in Courtroom 4 before the Honorable Lawrence J. O'Neill, 

United States District Court Judge.

A. This is a jury trial.

Case 1:14-cv-00010-LJO-JLT Document 28 Filed 06/09/14 Page 5 of 8
6

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

B. Counsels' Estimate of Trial Time: 5-7 days. 

C. Counsels' attention is directed to Local Rules of Practice for the Eastern District of 

California, Rule 285.

X. Settlement Conference

A Settlement Conference is scheduled for November 19, 2014 at 1:30 p.m., located at 510 19th

Street, Bakersfield, California. The settlement conference will be conducted by Magistrate Judge 

Thurston. If any party prefers that the settlement conference be conducted by a judicial officer

who is not normally assigned to this matter, that party is directed to notify the Court no later 

than 60 days in advance of the scheduled settlement conference to allow sufficient time for another 

judicial officer to be assigned to handle the conference.

Unless otherwise permitted in advance by the Court, the attorneys who will try the case shall 

appear at the Settlement Conference with the parties and the person or persons having full authority

to negotiate and settle the case on any terms1 at the conference. Consideration of settlement is a 

serious matter that requires preparation prior to the settlement conference. Set forth below are the 

procedures the Court will employ, absent good cause, in conducting the conference.

At least 21 days before the settlement conference, Plaintiff SHALL submit to Defendant via 

fax or e-mail, a written itemization of damages and a meaningful2 settlement demand which includes a 

brief explanation of why such a settlement is appropriate. Thereafter, no later than 14 days before the 

settlement conference, Defendant SHALL respond, via fax or e-mail, with an acceptance of the offer or 

with a meaningful counteroffer and which includes a brief explanation of why such a settlement is 

appropriate. 

 1 Insurance carriers, business organizations, and governmental bodies or agencies whose settlement 

agreements are subject to approval by legislative bodies, executive committees, boards of directors or the like shall 

be represented by a person or persons who occupy high executive positions in the party organization and who will be 

directly involved in the process of approval of any settlement offers or agreements. To the extent possible the 

representative shall have the authority, if he or she deems it appropriate, to settle the action on terms consistent with 

the opposing party's most recent demand.

2 “Meaningful” means that the offer is reasonably calculated to settle the case on terms acceptable to the 

offering party. “Meaningful” does not include an offer which the offering party knows will not be acceptable to the 

other party. If, however, the offering party is only willing to offer a settlement which it knows the other party will 

not accept, this should trigger a recognition the case is not in a settlement posture and the parties should confer about 

continuing or vacating the settlement conference via stipulation.

Case 1:14-cv-00010-LJO-JLT Document 28 Filed 06/09/14 Page 6 of 8
7

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

If settlement is not achieved, each party SHALL attach copies of their settlement offers to their 

Confidential Settlement Conference Statement, as described below. Copies of these documents shall 

not be filed on the court docket.

CONFIDENTIAL SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT

At least five court days prior to the Settlement Conference, the parties shall submit, directly to 

Judge Thurston's chambers by e-mail to JLTorders@caed.uscourts.gov, a Confidential Settlement 

Conference Statement. The statement should not be filed with the Clerk of the Court nor served on 

any other party, although the parties may file a Notice of Lodging of Settlement Conference 

Statement. Each statement shall be clearly marked "confidential" with the date and time of the 

Settlement Conference indicated prominently thereon. 

The Confidential Settlement Conference Statement shall include the following:

A. A brief statement of the facts of the case.

B. A brief statement of the claims and defenses, i.e., statutory or other grounds upon which 

the claims are founded; a forthright evaluation of the parties' likelihood of prevailing on 

the claims and defenses; and a description of the major issues in dispute.

C. A summary of the proceedings to date.

D. An estimate of the cost and time to be expended for further discovery, pretrial and trial. 

E. The relief sought.

F. The party's position on settlement, including present demands and offers and a history of 

past settlement discussions, offers and demands.

XI. Request for Bifurcation, Appointment of Special Master, or other 

Techniques to Shorten Trial

Not applicable at this time.

XII. Related Matters Pending

There are no pending related matters.

XIII. Compliance with Federal Procedure

All counsel are expected to familiarize themselves with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 

and the Local Rules of Practice of the Eastern District of California, and to keep abreast of any 

Case 1:14-cv-00010-LJO-JLT Document 28 Filed 06/09/14 Page 7 of 8
8

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

amendments thereto. The Court must insist upon compliance with the Rules if it is to efficiently handle 

its increasing case load and sanctions will be imposed for failure to follow the Rules as provided in the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of Practice for the Eastern District of California.

XIV. Effect of this Order

The foregoing order represents the best estimate of the court and counsel as to the agenda most 

suitable to dispose of this case. The trial date reserved is specifically reserved for this case. If the 

parties determine at any time that the schedule outlined in this order cannot be met, counsel are ordered 

to notify the court immediately of that fact so that adjustments may be made, either by stipulation or by 

subsequent status conference.

The dates set in this Order are considered to be firm and will not be modified absent a 

showing of good cause even if the request to modify is made by stipulation. Stipulations 

extending the deadlines contained herein will not be considered unless they are accompanied by 

affidavits or declarations, and where appropriate attached exhibits, which establish good cause 

for granting the relief requested.

Failure to comply with this order may result in the imposition of sanctions. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 9, 2014 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00010-LJO-JLT Document 28 Filed 06/09/14 Page 8 of 8