Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-00124/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-00124-29/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Modifying Schedule (2:10-CV-00124 KJM EFB) 

KAMALA D. HARRIS, State Bar No. 146672

Attorney General of California 

RENE L. LUCARIC, State Bar No. 180005 

Supervising Deputy Attorney General 

DAVID A. CARRASCO, State Bar No. 160460 

Deputy Attorney General 

300 South Spring Street, Suite 1702 

Los Angeles, CA 90013 

Telephone: (213) 897-6334 

Fax: (213) 897-7604 

E-mail: David.Carrasco@doj.ca.gov 

Attorneys for Defendants State of California, 

California Department of Corrections and 

Rehabilitation, Bailey, Johnson, and Shahid

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SACRAMENTO DIVISION 

JEREMY JAMISON, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

SHAHID, et al., 

Defendants.

2:10-cv-00124-KJM-EFB P 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER MODIFYING SCHEDULE 

Action filed: January 14, 2010 

On April 7, 2014, the Court issued a scheduling order setting June 17, 2015, as the deadline 

for hearing dispositive motions. (ECF No. 203.) Defendants filed a motion for summary 

judgment on May 20, 2015, on the mistaken belief that the deadline pertained to the filing of the 

motion. Plaintiff’s counsel’s schedule does not allow him sufficient time to oppose Defendants’ 

summary-judgment motion during the next few months. The parties therefore stipulate to modify 

the scheduling order as set forth below: 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

Case 2:10-cv-00124-KJM-EFB Document 225 Filed 07/17/15 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

Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Modifying Schedule (2:10-CV-00124 KJM EFB) 

Event Current date Proposed date 

Last day to hear dispositive motion June 17, 2015 December 16, 2015 

Settlement conference (elective) None set April 20, 2016 

Final pretrial conference September 16, 2015 May 25, 2016 

Trial November 9, 2015 July 25, 2016 

Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment shall be due by 

November 6, 2015, and Defendants’ reply shall be due on November 20, 2015. 

Dated: July 2, 2015 ___/s/ Kevin Schwin _____________________ 

KEVIN SCHWIN 

Law Offices of Kevin Schwin 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

Jeremy Jamison 

Dated: July 2, 2015 ___/s/ David A. Carrasco _________________ 

DAVID A. CARRASCO 

Office of Attorney General 

Attorney for Defendants 

State of California, California Department 

of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Bailey, 

Johnson, and Shahid

ORDER 

Having reviewed the stipulation of the parties to modify the scheduling order, and good 

cause showing therefor, the stipulation is approved. The dispositive motion deadline is continued 

to December 16, 2015. A settlement conference will be set by separate order. The final pretrial 

conference is set before the district judge on June 9, 2016 at 3:30 p.m.1

 Pretrial Statements in 

accordance with E.D. Cal. L.R. 281 shall be filed not later than twenty-one days before the 

///// 

///// 

 1

 See Attachment to this stipulation and order for specific procedures for Pretrial 

Conferences to be conducted before Judge Mueller. 

Case 2:10-cv-00124-KJM-EFB Document 225 Filed 07/17/15 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

Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Modifying Schedule (2:10-CV-00124 KJM EFB) 

Pretrial Conference. Trial before the district judge is set for July 25, 2016 at 9:00 a.m. in 

Courtroom No. 3. Trial briefs shall be filed not later than fourteen days before trial. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: July 16, 2015. 

Case 2:10-cv-00124-KJM-EFB Document 225 Filed 07/17/15 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

Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Modifying Schedule (2:10-CV-00124 KJM EFB) 

Final Pretrial Conference Requirements for Judge Mueller 

At least one of the attorneys who will conduct the trial for each of the parties shall attend 

the Final Pretrial Conference. If by reason of illness or other unavoidable circumstance a trial 

attorney is unable to attend, the attorney who attends in place of the trial attorney shall have equal 

familiarity with the case and equal authorization to make commitments on behalf of the client. 

Counsel for all parties are to be fully prepared for trial at the time of the Final Pretrial 

Conference, with no matters remaining to be accomplished except production of witnesses for 

oral testimony. The parties shall confer and file a joint pretrial conference statement by *.*. The 

provisions of Local Rule 281 shall apply with respect to the matters to be included in the joint 

pretrial statement. In addition to those subjects listed in Local Rule 281(b), the parties are to 

provide the court with the following: 

 - A plain, concise statement that identifies every non-discovery motion previously 

tendered to the court and its resolution. 

 - A concise, joint list of undisputed core facts that are relevant to each claim. 

Disputed core facts should then be identified in the same manner. The parties are reminded not to 

identify every fact in dispute but only those disputed facts that are essential to the formulation of 

each claim. Each disputed fact and undisputed fact should be separately numbered or lettered. 

Where the parties are unable to agree on the core disputed facts, they should nevertheless list core 

disputed facts in the above manner. 

 - Concise lists of disputed evidentiary issues that will be the subject of a party’s 

motion in limine. 

 - Each party’s points of law, which concisely describe the legal basis or theory 

underlying their claims and defenses. Points of law should reflect issues derived from the core 

undisputed and disputed facts. Parties shall not include argument with any point of law; the 

parties may include concise arguments in their trial briefs. 

 - A joint statement of the case in plain concise language, which will be read to the 

jury during voir dire and at the beginning of the trial. The purpose of the joint statement is to 

inform the jury what the case is about. 

 - The parties’ position on the number of jurors to be impaneled to try the case. 

Discovery documents to be listed in the pretrial statement shall not include documents to be 

used only for impeachment and in rebuttal. 

The parties are reminded that pursuant to Local Rule 281 they are required to attach to the 

Final Pretrial Conference Statement an exhibit listing witnesses and exhibits they propose to offer 

at trial. After the name of each witness, each party shall provide a brief statement of the nature of 

the testimony to be proffered. The parties may file a joint list or each party may file separate lists. 

These list(s) shall not be contained in the body of the Final Pretrial Conference Statement itself, 

but shall be attached as separate documents to be used as addenda to the Final Pretrial Order. 

Plaintiff’s exhibits shall be listed numerically. Defendant’s exhibits shall be listed 

alphabetically. The parties shall use the standard exhibit stickers provided by the court: pink for 

plaintiff and blue for defendant. In the event that the alphabet is exhausted, the exhibits shall be 

marked “AA-ZZ”. However, if the amount of defendant exhibits exceeds “ZZ” exhibits shall be 

then listed as A-3, A-4, A-5 etc. All multi-page exhibits shall be stapled or otherwise fastened 

together and each page within the exhibit shall be numbered. The list of exhibits shall not include 

excerpts of depositions to be used only for impeachment. In the event that plaintiff(s) and 

Case 2:10-cv-00124-KJM-EFB Document 225 Filed 07/17/15 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

Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Modifying Schedule (2:10-CV-00124 KJM EFB) 

defendant(s) offer the same exhibit during trial, that exhibit shall be referred to by the designation 

the exhibit is first identified. The court cautions the parties to pay attention to this detail so that 

all concerned, including the jury, will not be confused by one exhibit being identified with both a 

number and a letter. The parties are encouraged to consult concerning exhibits and, to the extent 

possible, provide joint exhibits, which shall be designated as JX and listed numerically, e.g., JX1, JX-2. 

The Final Pretrial Order will contain a stringent standard for the offering at trial of 

witnesses and exhibits not listed in the Final Pretrial Order, and the parties are cautioned that the 

standard will be strictly applied. On the other hand, the listing of exhibits or witnesses that a 

party does not intend to offer will be viewed as an abuse of the court’s processes. 

Counsel shall produce all trial exhibits to Casey Schultz, the Courtroom Deputy, no later 

than 3:00 p.m. on the Friday before trial. 

Failure to comply with Local Rule 281, as modified by this order, may be grounds for 

sanctions. 

The parties also are reminded that pursuant to Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure it will be their duty at the Final Pretrial Conference to aid the court in: (a) the 

formulation and simplification of issues and the elimination of frivolous claims or defenses; (b) 

the settling of facts that should properly be admitted; and (c) the avoidance of unnecessary proof 

and cumulative evidence. Counsel must cooperatively prepare the joint Final Pretrial Conference 

Statement and participate in good faith at the Final Pretrial Conference with these aims in mind. 

“If the pretrial conference discloses that no material facts are in dispute and that the undisputed 

facts entitle one of the parties to judgment as a matter of law,” the court may summarily dispose 

of the case or claims. Portsmouth Square v. Shareholders Protective Comm., 770 F.2d 866, 868-

69 (9th Cir. 1985). A failure to do so may result in the imposition of sanctions which may 

include monetary sanctions, orders precluding proof, elimination of claims or defenses, or such 

other sanctions as the court deems appropriate. 

Concurrently with the filing of the Joint Final Pretrial Conference Statement, counsel shall 

submit to chambers the word processable version of the Statement, in its entirety (including the 

witness and exhibit lists) to: kjmorders@caed.uscourts.gov.

Case 2:10-cv-00124-KJM-EFB Document 225 Filed 07/17/15 Page 5 of 5