Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02053/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02053-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Astrazeneca Administration Committee
Defendant
Astrazeneca Long Term Disability Insurance Plan
Defendant
Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals LP
Defendant
Broadspire Administrator Services, Inc.
Defendant
Broadspire Integrated Disability Management
Defendant
Broadspire Services, Inc.
Defendant
High Mark Life Insurance Company
Defendant
Gerald Smalley
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GERALD SMALLEY, ) 

) 2:06-cv-2053-GEB-EFB

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) STATUS (PRETRIAL

) SCHEDULING) ORDER

ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP; )

ASTRAZENECA LONG TERM DISABILITY )

INSURANCE PLAN; ASTRAZENECA )

ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE; HIGH )

MARK LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY; )

BROADSPIRE INTEGRATED DISABILITY )

MANAGEMENT; BROADSPIRE SERVICES )

INC.; BROADSPIRE ADMINISTRATOR )

SERVICES, INC., )

)

Defendants. )

)

A status (pretrial scheduling) conference was held on

December 18, 2006. Blane Smith appeared on behalf of Plaintiff;

Frederic Esrailian appeared on behalf of Defendants High Mark Life

Insurance Company, Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, Astrazeneca Long

Term Disability Insurance Plan, Broadspire Services, Incorporated, and

Broadspire Administrator Services, Incorporated (“Appearing

Defendants”). Defendants Astrazeneca Administration Committee and

Broadspire Integrated Disability Management did not appear. Plaintiff

Case 2:06-cv-02053-GEB-EFB Document 24 Filed 12/19/06 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

This time deadline does not apply to motions for continuances, 1

temporary restraining orders, emergency applications, or motions under

Rule 16(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

2

shall file a status report no later than January 18, 2007, in which he

explains the status of Plaintiff’s action against these two

Defendants.

Further, the Court makes the following Order.

SERVICE, JOINDER OF ADDITIONAL PARTIES, AMENDMENT

No further service, joinder of parties or amendments to

pleadings is permitted, except with leave of Court, good cause having

been shown. 

ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD/DISCOVERY

Appearing Defendants shall provide Plaintiff with a copy of

the Administrative Record on or before January 3, 2007. 

If, after reviewing the Administrative Record, Plaintiff

opines he is entitled to discovery, he shall file a motion in which

leave is sought to conduct specified discovery no later than

January 10, 2007, to be noticed for hearing February 20, 2007.

MOTION HEARING SCHEDULE

The last hearing date for motions shall be August 6, 2007,

at 9:00 a.m.1

Motions shall be filed in accordance with Local Rule 78-

230(b). Opposition papers shall be filed in accordance with Local

Rule 78-230(c). Failure to comply with this local rule may be deemed

consent to the motion and the Court may dispose of the motion

summarily. Brydges v. Lewis, 18 F.3d 651, 652-53 (9th Cir. 1994). 

Further, failure to timely oppose a summary judgment motion may result

in the granting of that motion if the movant shifts the burden to the

Case 2:06-cv-02053-GEB-EFB Document 24 Filed 12/19/06 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

nonmovant to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact remains for

trial. Cf. Marshall v. Gates, 44 F.3d 722 (9th Cir. 1995). 

Absent highly unusual circumstances, reconsideration of a

motion is appropriate only where:

(1) The Court is presented with newly discovered evidence

that could not reasonably have been discovered prior to the filing of

the party's motion or opposition papers;

(2) The Court committed clear error or the initial decision

was manifestly unjust; or

(3) There is an intervening change in controlling law.

A motion for reconsideration based on newly discovered evidence shall

set forth, in detail, the reason why said evidence could not

reasonably have been discovered prior to the filing of the party's

motion or opposition papers. Motions for reconsideration shall comply

with Local Rule 78-230(k) in all other respects.

The parties are cautioned that an untimely motion

characterized as a motion in limine may be summarily denied. A motion

in limine addresses the admissibility of evidence.

 FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE

The final pretrial conference is set for October 15, 2007,

at 11:00 a.m. The parties are cautioned that the lead attorney who

WILL TRY THE CASE for each party shall attend the final pretrial

conference. In addition, all persons representing themselves and

appearing in propria persona must attend the pretrial conference.

The parties are warned that non-trialworthy issues could be

eliminated sua sponte “[i]f the pretrial conference discloses that no

material facts are in dispute and that the undisputed facts entitle

Case 2:06-cv-02053-GEB-EFB Document 24 Filed 12/19/06 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

The failure of one or more of the parties to participate in 2

the preparation of any joint document required to be filed in this case

does not excuse the other parties from their obligation to timely file

the document in accordance with this Order. In the event a party fails

to participate as ordered, the party or parties timely submitting the

document shall include a declaration explaining why they were unable to

obtain the cooperation of the other party. 

4

one of the parties to judgment as a matter of law.” Portsmouth Square

v. Shareholders Protective Comm., 770 F.2d 866, 869 (9th Cir. 1985). 

The parties shall file a JOINT pretrial statement with the

Court not later than seven (7) days prior to the final pretrial

conference. The joint pretrial statement shall specify the issues 2

for trial. The Court uses the parties' joint pretrial statement to

prepare its final pretrial order and could issue the final pretrial

order without holding the scheduled final pretrial conference. See

Mizwicki v. Helwig, 196 F.3d 828, 833 (7th Cir. 1999) (“There is no

requirement that the court hold a pretrial conference.”). The final

pretrial order supersedes the pleadings and controls the facts and

issues which may be presented at trial. Issues asserted in pleadings

which are not preserved for trial in the final pretrial order cannot

be raised at trial. Hotel Emp., et al. Health Tr. v. Elks Lodge 1450,

827 F.2d 1324, 1329 (9th Cir. 1987) (“Issues not preserved in the

pretrial order are eliminated from the action.”); Valley Ranch Dev.

Co. v. F.D.I.C., 960 F.2d 550, 554 (5th Cir. 1992) (indicating that an

issue omitted from the pretrial order is waived, even if it appeared

in the pleading); cf. Raney v. District of Columbia, 892 F. Supp. 283

(D.D.C. 1995) (refusing to modify the pretrial order to allow

assertion of a previously-pled statute of limitations defense);

Olympia Co. v. Celotex Corp., 597 F. Supp. 285, 289 (E.D. La. 1984)

(indicating that “[a]ny factual contention, legal contention, any

Case 2:06-cv-02053-GEB-EFB Document 24 Filed 12/19/06 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

claim for relief or defense in whole or in part, or affirmative matter

not set forth in [the pretrial statement] shall be deemed . . .

withdrawn, notwithstanding the contentions of any pleadings or other

papers previously filed [in the action]”). 

If possible, at the time of filing the joint pretrial

statement counsel shall also email it in a format compatible with

WordPerfect to: geborders@caed.uscourts.gov.

TRIAL SETTING

A bench trial is set for December 18, 2007, commencing at

9:00 a.m. If Plaintiff opines he is entitled to a jury trial,

Plaintiff shall file a motion on the issue that is noticed for hearing

no later than the last hearing date for motions.

MISCELLANEOUS

The parties are reminded that pursuant to Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 16(b), the Status (pretrial scheduling) Order shall

not be modified except by leave of Court upon a showing of good cause. 

Counsel are cautioned that a mere stipulation by itself to change

dates does not constitute good cause. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 19, 2006

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cv-02053-GEB-EFB Document 24 Filed 12/19/06 Page 5 of 5