Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06618/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06618-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal - Employment Discrimination

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PAUL S. CARTER, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) 

)

INFINITY BROADCASTING )

CORPORATION, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

 )

1:04-cv-06618-REC-SMS

SCHEDULING CONFERENCE ORDER

Expert Disclosure Deadline:

8/12/05

Supplemental Expert

Disclosure Deadline:

8/29/05

Discovery Deadline:

9/16/05

Non-Dispositive Motion

Filing Deadline: 9/23/05

Dispositive Motion Filing

Deadline: 9/30/05

Settlement Conference Date: 

11/29/05, 2:00pm, Ctrm. 4/SMS

Pre-Trial Conference Date:

12/15/05, 2:00pm, Ctrm. 4/SMS

Trial Date: 1/31/06, 9:00am,

Ctrm. 1/REC (JT ~ 3-5 days)

1. Date of Scheduling Conference:

May 17, 2005.

//

Case 1:04-cv-06618-REC -SMS Document 27 Filed 05/18/05 Page 1 of 13
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

2. Appearances of Counsel:

Suzanne Kehde, Esq., appeared on behalf of plaintiff.

Christina M. Kotowski, Esq., of Kauff, McClain & McGuire,

LLP, appeared telephonically on behalf of defendant.

3. The Pleadings:

A. Summary of the Pleadings.

Plaintiff’s Contentions

Plaintiff’s corrected First Amended Complaint

contends that defendant breached an employment contract; that

plaintiff was discharged from employment for reasons that violate

public policy; that defendant retaliated against plaintiff for

reporting preferential treatment and sexual harassment of women;

that defendant harmed plaintiff by making defamatory statements;

and, that defendant’s intentional conduct caused plaintiff to

suffer severe emotional distress.

Defendant’s Contentions

Defendant contends that each of plaintiff’s claims

in this lawsuit are without merit, and that plaintiff is not

entitled to any relief. Plaintiff previously filed a charge with

the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (“DFEH”) alleging

discrimination, harassment, and retaliation on the same facts

alleged here, and the DFEH closed the case after an investigation,

finding that there was insufficient evidence to prove a violation

of the statute.

With respect to plaintiff’s complaint of retaliation

for engaging in protected activity under the Fair Employment and

Housing Act (“FEHA”), defendant contends that plaintiff’s complaint

of harassment was not made in good faith (both because of the

Case 1:04-cv-06618-REC -SMS Document 27 Filed 05/18/05 Page 2 of 13
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

insubordinate manner of the complaint and the fact that it was

first raised in response to criticism of plaintiff’s own job

performance), and that plaintiff therefore did not engage in

activity protected from retaliation by statute. Defendant also

believes that plaintiff’s wrongful termination claim may be barred

by the statute of limitations.

B. Orders Re: Amendment of Pleadings.

No amendments are proposed at this time.

4. Factual Summary:

A. Admitted Facts which are deemed proven without 

further proceedings.

(1) The dates of plaintiff’s employment with

defendant.

(2) The amount of compensation earned by plaintiff

while employed by defendant.

(3) Defendant is an employer subject to the FEHA.

(4) Al Smith and Patty Hixson were “supervisors” as

defined by the FEHA.

B. Contested Facts.

(1) Whether Al Smith and Patty Hixson engaged in

the conduct and/or made the statements alleged in the Complaint.

(2) Whether the alleged conduct is relevant to

plaintiff’s claims.

(3) The reasons for plaintiff’s complaint of

discrimination and harassment.

(4) Whether plaintiff engaged in any protected

activity under the FEHA.

//

Case 1:04-cv-06618-REC -SMS Document 27 Filed 05/18/05 Page 3 of 13
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

(5) Whether plaintiff’s employment was at-will or

required good cause for termination.

(6) The reasons for plaintiff’s termination.

(7) Whether defendant had a legitimate, nonpretextual reason for the termination.

(8) Whether any employee of defendant made any

defamatory statement to Univision Radio concerning plaintiff.

(9) The nature and extent of plaintiff’s damages,

including but not limited to his alleged emotional distress.

5. Legal Issues:

A. Uncontested.

(1) Jurisdiction

(2) Venue

(3) Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and state

substantive law apply.

B. Contested.

(1) Whether liability exists as to the remaining

claims.

(2) Whether the common interest privilege of

California Civil Code § 47 bars plaintiff’s defamation claim.

(3) Whether plaintiff’s retaliation claim is based

on bona fide reporting of alleged harassment and/or discrimination.

(4) Whether plaintiff fails to state a claim for

punitive damages as a matter of law.

6. Consent to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction:

This case will not be assigned for all purposes,

including trial, to the Honorable Sandra M. Snyder, United States

Magistrate Judge, as the parties do not so consent at this time.

Case 1:04-cv-06618-REC -SMS Document 27 Filed 05/18/05 Page 4 of 13
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

Nevertheless, any and all pleadings and/or correspondence should be

correctly numbered as: 1:04-cv-06618-REC-SMS

7. Discovery Plan and Cut-Off Dates:

A. Pursuant to F.R.Civ.P.26(b), and except as the court

may order after a showing of good cause, the “(p)arties may obtain

discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to

the claim or defense of any other party.” 

B. Unless otherwise stipulated between the parties or

ordered by the court pursuant to F.R.Civ.P.26(b)(2), discovery

shall be limited as follows:

(1) Depositions:

a. Each side may take no more than ten (10)

depositions. 

b. A deposition shall be limited to one (1)

day of seven (7) hours. F.R.Civ.P.30(d).

(2) Interrogatories:

a. “(A)ny party may serve upon any other

party written interrogatories, not exceeding 25 in number including

all discrete subparts . . .” F.R.Civ.P.33(a).

C. Pursuant to F.R.Civ.P.26(e), the parties shall

supplement their disclosures and amend their responses to discovery

requests in a timely manner.

D. The parties are ordered to complete all discovery on

or before September 16, 2005.

E. The parties are directed to disclose all expert

witnesses, in writing, on or before August 12, 2005, and all

supplemental expert witnesses, in writing, on or before August 29,

2005. The written designation of experts shall be made pursuant to

Case 1:04-cv-06618-REC -SMS Document 27 Filed 05/18/05 Page 5 of 13
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

6

F.R.Civ.P. Rule 26(a)(2), (A) and (B), 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) 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.

8. Pre-Trial Motion Schedule:

All Non-Dispositive Pre-Trial Motions, including any

discovery motions, shall be filed on or before September 23, 2005,

and are heard on Fridays at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom No. 4 before the

Honorable Sandra M. Snyder, United States Magistrate Judge.

Counsel must comply with Local Rule 37-251 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 6-142(d). However, if counsel does not obtain an order

shortening time, the notice of motion must comply with Local 

Rule 37-251. 

Counsel may appear, and argue non-dispositive motions,

telephonically, provided a written request to so appear is

presented to Magistrate Judge Snyder’s Courtroom Deputy Harriet

Herman no later than five (5) court days prior to the noticed

Case 1:04-cv-06618-REC -SMS Document 27 Filed 05/18/05 Page 6 of 13
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

 If WordPerfect 11 is not available to the parties, then the latest version of WordPerfect, or

any other word processing program in general use for IBM compatible personal computers, is

acceptable.

7

hearing date. If two or more attorneys request to appear

telephonically, then it shall be the obligation and responsibility

of the moving party(ies) to make prior arrangements for the

conference call with an AT&T operator (not Court Call, etc.), IF

counsel do not have conference call capabilities on their telephone

systems, and to initiate the call to the court.

All Dispositive Pre-Trial Motions shall be filed on or

before September 30, 2005, and are heard on Mondays at 1:30 p.m. in

Courtroom No. 1 before the Honorable Robert E. Coyle, Senior United

States District Judge. In scheduling such motions, counsel shall

comply with Local Rule 78-230.

9. Pre-Trial Conference Date:

December 15, 2005 at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom No. 4 before

the Honorable Sandra M. Snyder, United States Magistrate Judge.

Ten (10) days prior to the Pretrial Conference, the

parties shall exchange the disclosures required pursuant to

F.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(3). 

The parties are ordered to file a JOINT Pretrial

Statement pursuant to Local Rule 16-281(a)(2). The parties are

further ordered to submit a digital copy of their Joint Pretrial

Statement in WordPerfect 111 format directly to Judge Snyder’s

chambers by e-mailing it to SMSOrders@caed.uscourts.gov.

Counsels' attention is directed to Rules 16-281 and 16-

282 of the Local Rules of Practice for the Eastern District of

California as to their obligations of counsel in preparing for the

Case 1:04-cv-06618-REC -SMS Document 27 Filed 05/18/05 Page 7 of 13
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 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.

8

Pre-Trial Conference. The Court will insist upon strict compliance

with those Rules.

10. Trial Date:

January 31, 2006 at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom No. 1 before

the Honorable Robert E. Coyle, Senior United States District Judge.

A. This is a jury trial.

B. Counsels' Estimate of Trial Time: 

3-5 days.

C. Counsels' attention is directed to Rule 16-285 of

the Local Rules of Practice for the Eastern District of California.

11. Settlement Conference:

 November 29, 2005 at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom No. 4 before

the Honorable Sandra M. Snyder, United States Magistrate Judge.

Unless otherwise permitted in advance by Judge Snyder,

the attorneys who will try the case shall personally appear at the

Settlement Conference with the parties and the person or

persons having full authority to negotiate and settle the case on

any terms2 at the conference. 

Permission for a party [not attorney] to attend by

telephone may be granted by Judge Snyder upon request, by letter,

with a copy to the other parties, IF the party lives and works

outside the Eastern District of California, AND attendance in

Case 1:04-cv-06618-REC -SMS Document 27 Filed 05/18/05 Page 8 of 13
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

9

person would constitute a hardship. If telephone attendance is

allowed, the party must be immediately available throughout the

conference, until excused, regardless of time zone differences. 

Any other special arrangements desired in cases where settlement

authority rests with a governing body shall also be proposed, in

advance, by letter, and copied to all other parties.

CONFIDENTIAL SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT 

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Confidential Settlement

Conference Statement is MANDATORY, and must be submitted directly

to Judge Snyder’s chambers, at least five (5) court days prior to

the Settlement Conference, by e-mailing it to

SMSOrders@caed.uscourts.gov. Failure to so comply may result in

the imposition of monetary and/or other sanctions.

The Statement should not be filed with the Clerk’s Office

nor served on any other party, although the parties may file a

Notice of Lodging Confidential Settlement Conference Statement. 

Each Statement shall be clearly marked "Confidential" with the date

and time of the Settlement Conference indicated prominently

thereon. Counsel are urged to request the return of their

Statements if settlement is not achieved and, if such a request is

not made, the Court will dispose of the Statement.

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.

Case 1:04-cv-06618-REC -SMS Document 27 Filed 05/18/05 Page 9 of 13
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

10

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.

ADMONITION

If it is clear to counsel and/or the parties that this

case is not in a settlement posture, counsel are directed to

contact this Court’s staff immediately to make arrangements for a

continuance OR to take it off calendar. OTHERWISE, this Court will

assume the following:

1. That plaintiff has provided defendant with a timely

demand;

2. That the parties have met and conferred sufficiently

at least once prior to the Settlement Conference regarding possible

settlement; and,

3. That the parties are therefore ready, willing, and

able to settle the case, meaning that (A) defendant has settlement

authority, and (B) plaintiff is willing to negotiate in good faith.

If there is no settlement authority from either or any

party and/or it is the hope of one or more parties that this Court

assess strengths and weaknesses of each parties’ cases such that

this Court will hopefully convince a party to dismiss his/her/their

lawsuit, THIS IS NOT SETTLEMENT. In such a situation, the parties

are ordered to coordinate a telephonic conference call with this

Court, through Courtroom Deputy Harriet Herman at (559) 498-7252 OR

Case 1:04-cv-06618-REC -SMS Document 27 Filed 05/18/05 Page 10 of 13
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

11

Judicial Assistant Frances Robles at (559) 498-7325, prior to the

Settlement Conference, to discuss the status of settlement. 

Failure to do so could result in sanctions against any or all

parties if appearances are made and it was known to one or more

parties that the case cannot settle.

12. Request for Bifurcation, Appointment of Special Master,

or other Techniques to Shorten Trial:

Not applicable at this time.

13. Related Matters Pending:

There are no pending related matters.

14. Compliance with Federal Procedure:

The Court requires compliance with the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of Practice for the Eastern

District of California. To aid the Court in the efficient

administration of this case, all counsel are expected to

familiarize themselves with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

and the Local Rules of Practice for the Eastern District of

California, and to keep abreast of any amendments thereto. The

Court must insist upon compliance with these Rules if it is to

efficiently handle its increasing caseload. Sanctions will be

imposed for failure to follow the Rules as provided in both the

Fed.R.Civ.P. and the Local Rules.

15. Compliance with Electronic Filing Requirement:

On January 3, 2005, the United States District Court for

the Eastern District of California became an electronic case

management/filing district (CM/ECF). Unless excused by the Court,

or by Local Rule, attorneys shall file all documents electronically

as of January 3, 2005 in all actions pending before the court.

Case 1:04-cv-06618-REC -SMS Document 27 Filed 05/18/05 Page 11 of 13
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

12

While Pro Se Litigants are exempt from this requirement, the court

will scan in all documents filed by pro se litigants, and the

official court record in all cases will be electronic. Attorneys

are required to file electronically in pro se cases. More

information regarding the Court’s implementation of CM/ECF can be

found on the court’s web site at www.caed.uscourts.gov, including

the Court’s Amended Local Rules effective January 3, 2005, the

Court’s CM/ECF Final Procedures, and the Court’s CM/ECF User’s

Manual.

While the Clerk's Office will not refuse to file a

proffered paper document, the Clerk's Office will scan it and, if

improperly filed, notify the Court that the document was filed in

an improper format. An order to show cause (OSC) may be issued in

appropriate cases regarding an attorney's disregard for the

requirement to utilize electronic filing, or other violations of

these electronic filing procedures. See L.R. 11-110, L.R.

5-133(d)(3).

If counsel has not already done so, counsel must register

for CM/ECF as soon as possible. On-line registration is available

at www.caed.uscourts.gov. Once registered, counsel will receive a

login and password in approximately one (1) week. Counsel must be

registered to file documents on-line. See L.R. 5-135(g). Counsel

are responsible for knowing the rules governing electronic filing

in the Eastern District. Please review the Court’s Local Rules

effective January 3, 2005, available on the Court’s web site.

///

//

/

Case 1:04-cv-06618-REC -SMS Document 27 Filed 05/18/05 Page 12 of 13
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

13

16. Effect of this Order:

The foregoing Order represents the best estimate of the

Court and counsel as to the agenda most suitable to bring this case

to resolution. 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 so that adjustments may be made,

either by stipulation or by subsequent status conference.

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 SHALL RESULT IN THE

IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 17, 2005 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06618-REC -SMS Document 27 Filed 05/18/05 Page 13 of 13