Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01740/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01740-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 448
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights - Education
Cause of Action: 20:1400 Civil Rights of Handicapped Child

---

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

 

1

For the parties’ convenience, changes to the previous scheduling order are highlighted in yellow.

N.G. (a minor, by and through her parent 

and guardian ad litem, J.G.),

 Plaintiff,

v.

TEHACHAPI UNIFIED SCHOOL 

DISTRICT, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1: 15-CV-01740 LJO JLT

AMENDED1SCHEDULING ORDER (Fed. R. Civ.

P. 16)

Pleading Amendment Deadline: 11/1/2016

Administrative Record Deadlines:

 Filing: 4/25/2016

 Objections to record: 5/10/2016

Briefs re: Discovery

Plaintiff’s Brief: 5/25/2016

Defendant’s Brief: 6/24/2016

Plaintiff’s Reply:7/5/2016

Non-Dispositive Motion Deadlines:

Filing: 11/7/2016

Hearing: 12/5/2016 

Status Conference re: Merits Briefing: 12/5/2016

Appeal from Administrative Decision:

 Plaintiff’s Brief: 12/19/2016

 Defendant’s response: 1/16/2017

 Reply brief: 1/30/2017

Hearing on the Briefs: 3/28/2017, Ctrm 4

Case 1:15-cv-01740-LJO-JLT Document 12 Filed 03/15/16 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

I. Date of Scheduling Conference

February 23, 2016.

II. Appearances of Counsel

Andrea Marcus appeared on behalf of Plaintiff.

Darren Bogie, appeared on behalf of Defendants.

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 1:15-cv-01740-LJO-JLT Document 12 Filed 03/15/16 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

IV. Pleading Amendment Deadline

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

motion to amend, no later than November 1, 2016.

V. Administrative Record

Plaintiff SHALL file the administrative record no later than April 25, 2016. Plaintiff need not 

provide a courtesy paper copy but SHALL provide a searchable electronic copy to the chambers of 

Judge O’Neill. Objections to the record SHALL be filed no later than May 10, 2016.

If there is a dispute over the contents of the administrative record, the objecting party SHALL

confer with the opposing party in a good faith effort to resolve the issues in dispute. If that good faith 

effort is unsuccessful, the objecting party SHALL promptly seek a telephonic hearing with all involved 

parties and the Magistrate Judge. It is the obligation of the objecting 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. 

VI. Discovery

The parties disagree whether discovery should be allowed. They agree to brief the issue. The 

briefs filed at this time also may seek augmentation of the record. 

Plaintiff’s brief seeking discovery and/or motion to augment the record SHALL be filed no 

later than May 25, 2016. The brief SHALL set forth with precision the discovery sought and why 

discovery of this sort should be permitted. It must be supported by pertinent legal authority.

Defendant’s brief opposing discovery and/or motion to augment the record SHALL be filed no 

later than June 24, 2016. Plaintiff’s optional reply/opposition to motion to augment the record, if any, 

SHALL be filed no later than July 5, 2016.

VII. Pre-Trial Motion Schedule

A. Non-dispositive motions

All non-dispositive pre-trial motions, including any motions to augment the record2, shall be 

filed no later than November 7, 2016, and heard on or before December 5, 2016. Non-dispositive 

 

2 The parties may file their motion to augment the record either along with the briefing related to whether discovery 

should be allowed or by the dates set forth here.

Case 1:15-cv-01740-LJO-JLT Document 12 Filed 03/15/16 Page 3 of 5
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

motions are heard before the Honorable Jennifer L. Thurston, United States Magistrate Judge at the 

United States Courthouse in Bakersfield, California.

No written 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.

B. Status Conference re: Merits briefing

The Court sets a status conference re: the merits briefing on December 5, 2016 at 9:00 a.m. at 

the United States Courthouse, located at 510 19th Street, Bakersfield, CA, before Magistrate Judge 

Thurston. Appearances via CourtCall are authorized. No later than November 28, 2016, counsel 

SHALL file a joint status conference statement indicating whether the matter will proceed only on the 

administrative record or whether either party will seek to present live testimony. In the event either 

party will present live testimony, the briefing schedule and the hearing date may need to be changed to 

allow the briefs to be filed after the presentation of the testimony.

C. Merits briefing

Plaintiff’s brief on the merits SHALL be filed no later than December 19, 2016 and 

Defendant’s opposing brief SHALL be filed no later than January 16, 2017. Plaintiff’s reply, if any, 

SHALL be filed no later than January 30, 2017. 

///

Case 1:15-cv-01740-LJO-JLT Document 12 Filed 03/15/16 Page 4 of 5
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

X. Hearing on the Briefs

March 28, 2017 at 8:30 a.m. in Courtroom 4 before the Honorable Lawrence J. O'Neill, United 

States District Court Judge.

A. This is oral argument on the merits briefs only.

B. Counsels’ attention is directed to Local Rules of Practice for the Eastern District of 

California, Rule 285.

XI. 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 

amendments thereto. The Court must insist upon compliance with these 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 both the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of Practice for the Eastern District of 

California.

XII. Effect of this Order

This order represents the best estimate of the court and counsel as to the schedule most suitable 

to dispose of this case. If the parties determine that the schedule outlined in this order cannot be met, 

they must notify the court immediately so that adjustments may be made, either by stipulation or by 

subsequent status conference.

The dates set in this Order are 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 evidence establishing

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: March 15, 2016 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01740-LJO-JLT Document 12 Filed 03/15/16 Page 5 of 5