Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00099/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00099-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
City of Bakersfield
Defendant
Emilio Tarango
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

 

1 The Court finds the matter may be resolved without a hearing and, therefore, VACATES the hearing set on April 1, 

2016.

EMILIO TARANGO,

 Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF BAKERSFIELD,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:16-cv-00099 JLT

SCHEDULING ORDER1(Fed. R. Civ. P. 16)

Pleading Amendment Deadline: 7/29/2016

Discovery Deadlines:

Initial Disclosures: 4/22/2016

Non-Expert: 12/30/2016

Expert: 2/3/2017

Mid-Discovery Status Conference: 8/29/2016

 

Non-Dispositive Motion Deadlines:

Filing: 2/17/2017

Hearing: 3/17/2017

Dispositive Motion Deadlines: 

Filing: 3/31/2017

Hearing: 5/5/2017

Pre-Trial Conference:

6/30/2017 at 8:30 a.m.

 510 19th Street, Bakersfield, CA

Trial: 8/14/2017 at 8:30 a.m.

 510 19th Street, Bakersfield, CA

 Jury trial: 6-7 days

Case 1:16-cv-00099-JLT Document 22 Filed 03/29/16 Page 1 of 6
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. Pleading Amendment Deadline

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

motion to amend, no later than July 29, 2016.

II. Discovery Plan and Cut-Off Date

The Court modifies the discovery limitations as follows: each side may take 15 depositions, 

excluding experts, and may propound 50 interrogatories, 50 requests to admit and 50 requests for 

production of documents.

The parties are ordered to exchange the initial disclosures required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) 

on or before April 22, 2016.

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

December 30, 2016, and all discovery pertaining to experts on or before February 3, 2017.

The parties are directed to disclose all expert witnesses2on or before December 16, 2016. 

Plaintiff shall disclose any rebuttal experts no later than January 13, 2017. The designations of 

retained and non-retained experts must be in writing, and 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 written designation of retained and non-retained experts shall be made pursuant to Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 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 

 

2

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-00099-JLT Document 22 Filed 03/29/16 Page 2 of 6
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

disclosures and responses to discovery requests will be strictly enforced.

A mid-discovery status conference is scheduled for August 29, 2016 at 8:30 a.m. before the 

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

Courthouse located at 510 19th Street, Bakersfield, California. A Joint Mid-Discovery Status 

Conference Report, carefully prepared and executed by all counsel, shall be filed one week before the 

conference and SHALL be e-mailed, in Word format to, JLTorders@caed.uscourts.gov. The report 

SHALL detail the discovery completed and that which remains to be completed and discuss any 

impediments to completing discovery within the deadlines set. Counsel may appear by telephone via 

the CourtCall service. 

III. Pre-Trial Motion Schedule

All non-dispositive pre-trial motions, including any discovery motions, and all dispositive 

motions shall be filed no later than February 17, 2017, and heard on or before March 17, 2017. 

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.

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. 

All dispositive pre-trial motions shall be filed no later than March 31, 2017, and heard on or 

before May 5, 2017. In scheduling such motions, counsel shall comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 and 

Local Rules 230 and 260. Counsel may appear by telephone via the CourtCall service.

///

Case 1:16-cv-00099-JLT Document 22 Filed 03/29/16 Page 3 of 6
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

A. Motions for Summary Judgment or Summary Adjudication

In scheduling dispositive motions, counsel shall comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 and Local 

Rules 230 and 260.

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.

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; 6) to arrive at 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 seven 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.

IV. Pre-Trial Conference Date

June 30, 2017, at 8:30 a.m. at the United States District Courthouse in Bakersfield, California

before the Honorable Jennifer L. Thurston, United States Magistrate 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 Thurston’s chambers, by email at JLTOrders@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 

Case 1:16-cv-00099-JLT Document 22 Filed 03/29/16 Page 4 of 6
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

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.

V. Trial Date

August 14, 2017, at 8:30 a.m. at the United States District Courthouse in Bakersfield, 

California, before the Honorable Jennifer L. Thurston, United States Magistrate Judge.

A. This is a Jury trial.

B. Counsels' Estimate of Trial Time: 4 days. 

C. Counsels' attention is directed to Local Rules of Practice for the Eastern District of 

California, Rule 285.

VI. Settlement Conference

The parties may file a joint request that the Court set a settlement conference if they agree the 

case is in a settlement posture. In the request, they should propose dates for the conference.

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

Trial

Not applicable at this time.

VIII. Related Matters Pending

There are no pending related matters.

IX. 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 to efficiently handle its 

increasing case load, and sanctions will be imposed for failure to follow both the Federal Rules of Civil 

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

X. 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 

Case 1:16-cv-00099-JLT Document 22 Filed 03/29/16 Page 5 of 6
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

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: March 29, 2016 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00099-JLT Document 22 Filed 03/29/16 Page 6 of 6