Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00969/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00969-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Family Dollar, Inc.
Defendant
Rita Godoy
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

RITA GODOY,

 Plaintiff,

v.

FAMILY DOLLAR, INC.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1: 16-CV-00969 - DAD - JLT

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

Pleading Amendment Deadline: 1/12/2017

Discovery Deadlines:

Initial Disclosures: 10/25/2016

Non-Expert: 5/5/2017

Expert: 7/18/2017

Mid-Discovery Status Conference: 

 3/3/2017 at 9:00 a.m.

Non-Dispositive Motion Deadlines:

Filing: 7/28/2017

Hearing: 8/25/2017

Dispositive Motion Deadlines: 

Filing: 9/19/2017

Hearing: 10/17/2017

Settlement Conference:

5/12/2017 at 9:30 a.m.

 510 19th Street, Bakersfield, CA

Pre-Trial Conference:

12/4/2017 at 3:30 p.m.

Courtroom 5

Trial: 1/30/2018 at 8:30 a.m.

 Courtroom 5

 Jury trial: 5-7 days

 

Case 1:16-cv-00969-DAD-JLT Document 18 Filed 10/11/16 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

October 11, 2016.

II. Appearances of Counsel

David Shay appeared on behalf of Plaintiff.

Roger Backlar 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 1:16-cv-00969-DAD-JLT Document 18 Filed 10/11/16 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 January 12, 2017. Any motion to amend a pleading shall be set before 

the Honorable Judge Dale A. Drozd.

V. 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 October 25, 2016.

The parties are ordered to complete all discovery pertaining to non-experts on or before May 5, 

2017, and all discovery pertaining to experts on or before July 18, 2017.

The parties are directed to disclose all expert witnesses1, in writing, on or before May 23, 2017, 

and to disclose all rebuttal experts on or before June 20, 2017. 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 March 3, 2017 at 9:00 a.m. before the 

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

California. Counsel SHALL file a joint mid-discovery status conference report one week before the 

conference. Counsel also SHALL lodge the status report via e-mail to JLTorders@caed.uscourts.gov. 

The joint statement SHALL outline the discovery counsel have completed and that which needs to be 

 

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 1:16-cv-00969-DAD-JLT Document 18 Filed 10/11/16 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

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 notice of the intent to appear 

telephonically is provided to the Magistrate Judge's Courtroom Deputy 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 July 28, 2017, and heard on or before August 25, 2017. Non-dispositive motions are heard before 

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

Bakersfield, California.

No motion to amend or stipulation to amend the case schedule will be entertained unless it 

is filed at least one week before the first deadline the parties wish to extend. Likewise, 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 the 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 the Court’s calendar.

All dispositive pre-trial motions shall be filed no later than September 19, 2017, and heard no 

later than October 17, 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 Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 

and Local Rules 230 and 260.

VII. Motions for Summary Judgment or Summary Adjudication

At least 21 days before filing a motion for summary judgment or motion for summary 

adjudication, the parties are ORDERED to meet, in person or by telephone, to confer about the issues 

to be raised in the motion.

Case 1:16-cv-00969-DAD-JLT Document 18 Filed 10/11/16 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

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 motion; and 6) to develop a joint statement of undisputed facts.

The moving party SHALL initiate the meeting and SHALL provide a complete, proposed 

statement of undisputed facts at least five days before the conference. The finalized joint statement of 

undisputed facts SHALL include all facts that the parties agree, for purposes of the motion, may be 

deemed true. In addition to the requirements of Local Rule 260, the moving party shall file the 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. Failure to 

comply may result in the motion being stricken.

VIII. Pre-Trial Conference Date

December 4, 2017 at 3:30 p.m. in Courtroom 5 before Judge Drozd.

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. 

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

January 30, 2018 at 8:30 a.m. in Courtroom 5 before the Honorable Dale A. Drozd, United 

States District Court Judge.

A. This is a jury trial.

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

Case 1:16-cv-00969-DAD-JLT Document 18 Filed 10/11/16 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

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 May 12, 2017 at 9:30 a.m., located at 510 19th Street, 

Bakersfield, California. Despite the provisions of Local Rule 270(b), the settlement conference will be 

conducted by Magistrate Judge Thurston. If any party prefers that the settlement conference is

conducted by a judicial officer not already assigned to this case, that party is directed to notify 

the Court at least 60 days before 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 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 21 days before the settlement conference, Plaintiff SHALL submit to Defendant 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 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, which includes a brief explanation of why such a settlement is 

appropriate. 

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 

 

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 1:16-cv-00969-DAD-JLT Document 18 Filed 10/11/16 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

not be filed on the court docket.

CONFIDENTIAL SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT

At least five court days before 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 

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 

Case 1:16-cv-00969-DAD-JLT Document 18 Filed 10/11/16 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

in both 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: October 11, 2016 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00969-DAD-JLT Document 18 Filed 10/11/16 Page 8 of 8