Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01492/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01492-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
J.T.
Plaintiff
Tehachapi Unified School District
Defendant
Janice Wolfe
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

I. Date of Scheduling Conference

March 23, 2017.

II. Appearances of Counsel

Andrea Marcus appeared on behalf of Plaintiff.

Anthony DeMaria 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 

J.T., by and through his guardian ad litem 

JANICE WOLFE,

 Plaintiff,

v.

TEHACHAPI UNIFIED SCHOOL 

DISTRICT,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1: 16-CV-01492 - DAD - JLT

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

Pleading Amendment Deadline: 6/30/2017

Administrative Record Deadline

 Filing: 4/27/2017

 Objections to the record: 5/15/2017

Merits Briefing:

 Opening Brief: 6/16/2017

 Defendant’s response: 7/14/2017

 Reply brief: 8/4/2017

 Hearing deadline: 9/5/2017

Further Scheduling Conference: 

 9/18/2017 at 9:15 a.m.

 

Case 1:16-cv-01492-DAD-JLT Document 35 Filed 03/23/17 Page 1 of 4
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

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. A 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.

IV. Pleading Amendment Deadline

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

motion to amend, no later than June 30, 2017. Any motion to amend the pleadings shall be heard by 

the Honorable Dale A. Drozd, United States District Court Judge.

V. Administrative Record

Plaintiff SHALL lodge a searchable electronic copy of the administrative record no later than 

April 27, 2017. Plaintiff SHALL also provide a courtesy paper copy to Judge O’Neill’s chambers at 

the time of the filing of the opening brief. Any objections to the record SHALL be filed no later than 

May 15, 2017.

Case 1:16-cv-01492-DAD-JLT Document 35 Filed 03/23/17 Page 2 of 4
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

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. Merits Briefing and Hearing

Plaintiff’s opening brief SHALL be filed no later than June 16, 2017, and Defendant’s 

opposition brief SHALL be filed no later than July 14, 20171. Plaintiff’s reply, if any, SHALL be 

filed no later than August 4, 2017. 

The hearing SHALL be set before the Honorable Dale A. Drozd, United States District Court 

Judge, in Courtroom 5, no later than September 5, 2017.

VII. Further Scheduling Conference

A further scheduling conference is set on September 18, 2017 at 9:15 a.m. The parties SHALL 

file a joint status report seven days prior to the hearing. 

VIII. 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 both the Federal 

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

IX. 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 

 

1

 The Court was informed of the busy trial schedule on counsel for the defendant. If the trial, discussed at the 

scheduling conference, proceeds on June 12, 2017, and counsel will be unable to proper the opposing brief, counsel 

may stipulate to amend the briefing schedule.

Case 1:16-cv-01492-DAD-JLT Document 35 Filed 03/23/17 Page 3 of 4
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

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: March 23, 2017 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-01492-DAD-JLT Document 35 Filed 03/23/17 Page 4 of 4