Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01641/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01641-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
George Anderson
Defendant
County of Kern
Defendant
Jane Doe
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JANE DOE,

Plaintiff,

v.

COUNTY OF KERN and GEORGE 

ANDERSON,

Defendants.

No. 1:15-CV-01641-DAD-JLT

SCHEDULING ORDER

Pleading Amendment Deadline: May 17, 2016

Discovery Deadlines:

Initial Disclosures: March 18, 2016

Non-Expert: August 22, 2016

Expert: November 28, 2016

Mid-Discovery Status Conference:

June 7, 2016 at 8:30 a.m.

Non-Dispositive Motion Deadlines:

Filing: December 12, 2016

Hearing: January 10, 2017

Dispositive Motion Deadlines: 

Filing: January 24, 2017

Hearing: March 7, 2017

Settlement Conference: April 19, 2017 at 

10:00 a.m., 510 19th Street, Bakersfield, CA

Pre-Trial Conference: May 1, 2017 at 1:30 p.m.,

Courtroom 5 (Fresno)

Trial: June 27, 2017 at 8:30 a.m., 

Courtroom 5 (Fresno)

Jury trial: 10–12 days

Case 1:15-cv-01641-JLT Document 25 Filed 02/22/16 Page 1 of 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

2

I. Date of Scheduling Conference

A scheduling conference was held on February 16, 2016.

II. Appearances of Counsel

Neil K. Gehlawat appeared telephonically on behalf of plaintiff.

Kathleen Rivera appeared telephonically on behalf of defendant County of Kern.

James D. Weakley appeared in person on behalf of defendant George Anderson.

III. Pleading Amendment Deadline

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

motion to amend, no later than May 17, 2016.

IV. Discovery Plan and Cut-Off Date

The parties are ordered to exchange the initial disclosures required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 

26(a)(1) on or before March 18, 2016.

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

August 22, 2016 and all discovery pertaining to experts on or before November 28, 2016.

The parties are directed to disclose all expert witnesses,

1

in writing, on or before October 

3, 2016, and to disclose all rebuttal experts on or before October 31, 2016. 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 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 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.

 

1

 In the event an expert will offer opinions related to an independent medical or mental health 

evaluation, the examination SHALL occur sufficiently in advance of the disclosure deadline so 

the expert’s report fully details the expert’s opinions in this regard.

Case 1:15-cv-01641-JLT Document 25 Filed 02/22/16 Page 2 of 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

3

The provisions of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 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 9:00 a.m. on June 7, 2016 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, prepared and executed by 

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

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

outline the discovery that has been completed and that which still needs to be completed as well 

as any impediments to completing the discovery within the deadlines set forth in this order. 

Counsel may appear at that conference via CourtCall, provided 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. 

V. Pre-Trial Motion Schedule

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

later than December 12, 2016 and heard on or before January 10, 2017. All Non-dispositive 

motions will be heard before the Honorable Jennifer L. Thurston, U. S. 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.

/////

Case 1:15-cv-01641-JLT Document 25 Filed 02/22/16 Page 3 of 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

4

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 all non-dispositive motions via CourtCall, provided 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 January 24, 2017 and heard no 

later than March 7, 2017, in Courtroom 5 at 9:30 a.m. before the Honorable Dale A. Drozd, 

United States District Court Judge. In scheduling such motions, counsel shall comply with 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 and Local Rules 230 and 260.

VI. 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 twenty-one days prior to 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; and (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. 

/////

/////

Case 1:15-cv-01641-JLT Document 25 Filed 02/22/16 Page 4 of 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

5

VII. Final Pre-Trial Conference Date

The final pre-trial conference is scheduled for 1:30 p.m. on May 1, 2017 in Courtroom 5 

before Judge Dale A. Drozd, United States District Court Judge. 

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 Drozd’s chambers, by email at DADorders@caed.uscourts.gov. 

Counsel’s attention is directed to Local Rules 281 and 282, 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.

VIII. Trial Date

Trial is scheduled to commence at 8:30 a.m. on June 27, 2017 in Courtroom 5 before Dale 

A. Drozd, United States District Court Judge.

A. This is a JURY trial.

B. Counsel’s estimate of trial time: 10–12 days. 

C. Counsel’s attention is directed to Local Rule 285.

IX. Settlement Conference

A Settlement Conference is scheduled for 10:00 a.m. on April 19, 2017, 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 different 

judicial officer, 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 

Case 1:15-cv-01641-JLT Document 25 Filed 02/22/16 Page 5 of 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

6

authority to negotiate and settle the case on any terms2at 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 twenty-one days before the settlement conference, plaintiff shall submit to 

defendants via fax or e-mail, a written itemization of damages and a meaningful3settlement 

demand which includes a brief explanation of why such a settlement is appropriate. Thereafter, 

no later than fourteen days before the settlement conference, defendant shall respond, via fax or 

e-mail, with an acceptance of the offer or with a meaningful counteroffer which includes a brief 

explanation of why such a settlement is appropriate. 

If settlement is not achieved, each party shall attach copies of its settlement offer to its 

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 a 

Confidential Settlement Conference Statement, directly to Judge Thurston’s chambers by e-mail

at JLTorders@caed.uscourts.gov. 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 

 

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.

3

“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 1:15-cv-01641-JLT Document 25 Filed 02/22/16 Page 6 of 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

7

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.

X. Request for Bifurcation, Appointment of Special Master, or other Techniques to 

Shorten Trial

Defendant County requests the trial be trifurcated, while plaintiff requests the trial be 

bifurcated. The requests for bifurcation or trifurcation will be addressed by the court at the final 

pretrial conference.

XI. Related Matters Pending

There are no pending related matters.

XII. 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.

/////

Case 1:15-cv-01641-JLT Document 25 Filed 02/22/16 Page 7 of 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

8

XIII. 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 will not be modified absent a showing of good cause even 

if the request to modify is made by stipulation. Therefore, 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: February 21, 2016 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01641-JLT Document 25 Filed 02/22/16 Page 8 of 8