Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01637/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01637-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
County of Kern
Defendant
Jane Doe
Plaintiff
Cesar Navejar
Defendant

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

JANE DOE,

 Plaintiff,

v.

COUNTY OF KERN, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:15-CV-01637 - DAD - JLT

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

Pleading Amendment Deadline: 7/1/2016

Discovery Deadlines:

Initial Disclosures: 4/11/2016

Non-Expert: 9/9/2016

Expert: 11/14/2016

Mid-Discovery Status Conference: 

 7/7/2016 at 9:00 a.m.

Non-Dispositive Motion Deadlines:

Filing: 11/21/2016

Hearing: 12/19/2016

Dispositive Motion Deadlines: 

Filing: 1/10/2017

Hearing: 2/21/2017

Settlement Conference:

3/24/2017 at 1:30 p.m.

Pre-Trial Conference:

4/17/2017 at 1:30 p.m.

Courtroom 5

Trial: 6/13/2017 at 8:30 a.m.

 Courtroom 5

 Jury trial: 10-12 days

Case 1:15-cv-01637-JLT Document 20 Filed 04/05/16 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

April 4, 2016.

II. Appearances of Counsel

Neil Gehlawat appeared on behalf of Plaintiff.

Andrew Thomson appeared on behalf of the County of Kern.

James Weakley appeared on behalf of Cesar Navejar.

III. Pleading Amendment Deadline

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

motion to amend, no later than July 1, 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 April 11, 2016.

Defendants requests the Court expand the number of depositions to 15. Defendants report that 

the additional depositions are needed to discover Plaintiff’s claims and to properly evaluate her 

credibility. Plaintiff disagrees with this request and is concerned that Defendants will attempt to depose 

people who cannot contribute information on issues raised in the complaint. The Court understands 

this concern and is prepared to assist with informal discovery conferences as needed to resolve disputes 

on this point. (See Headnote V. below) Thus, the Court modifies the discovery limitations and 

expands the number of depositions per side to 15, excluding expert depositions.

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

September 9, 2016, and all discovery pertaining to experts on or before November 14, 2016.

The parties are directed to disclose all expert witnesses1, in writing, on or before September 19, 

2016, and to disclose all rebuttal experts on or before October 17, 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 

 

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-01637-JLT Document 20 Filed 04/05/16 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

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 July 7, 2016 at 9:00 a.m. before the 

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

California, 93301. Counsel SHALL file a joint mid-discovery status conference report, one week 

before the conference. Counsel SHALL also e-mail the report in Word or .pdf format to 

JLTOrders@caed.uscourts.gov. The joint statement SHALL outline the discovery that has been 

completed and that which needs to be 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 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 November 21, 2016, and heard on or before December 19, 2016. Non-dispositive motions are 

heard before the Honorable Jennifer L. Thurston, United States 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 

Case 1:15-cv-01637-JLT Document 20 Filed 04/05/16 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

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. 

Counsel may appear and argue non-dispositive motions via CourtCall, providing 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 10, 2017, and heard on or 

before February 21, 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.

VI. 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.

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 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 

Case 1:15-cv-01637-JLT Document 20 Filed 04/05/16 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

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.

VII. Pre-Trial Conference Date

April 17, 2017, at 1:30 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.

VIII. Trial Date

June 13, 20172, 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: 10-12 days. 

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

California, Rule 285.

IX. Settlement Conference

A Settlement Conference is scheduled for March 24, 2017 at 1:30 p.m. before the Honorable 

Jennifer L. Thurston and the United States District Courthouse located at 510 19th Street, Bakersfield, 

CA. If any party prefers the settlement conference be conducted by a judicial officer not assigned 

to this case, that party SHALL notify the Court at least 60 days in advance of the conference to 

allow a different judicial officer to be assigned. 

 

2 Mr. Weakley has another set for trial on June 19, 2017, which may present a conflict for this trial. However, 

given his heavy trial calendar, trial dates are not available for him until September 2017 or later. Thus, the Court 

selected this trial date with the understanding that Mr. Weakley may need to seek a continuance of the trial date if his 

other matter, which was previously scheduled, does not resolve.

Case 1:15-cv-01637-JLT Document 20 Filed 04/05/16 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

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 terms3at 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 meaningful4settlement 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 

not be filed on the court docket.

CONFIDENTIAL SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT 

At least five court days before the Settlement Conference, the parties shall submit, directly to 

Judge Thurston's chambers by e-mail to EPGorders@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 

 

3

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.

4

“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.

Case 1:15-cv-01637-JLT Document 20 Filed 04/05/16 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

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

The parties disagree as to whether the trial should be trifurcated (with individual liability, 

Monell liability and punitive damages liability all tied separately) or bifurcated (individual liability and 

Monell liability tried together with the issue of punitive damages tried after). The parties will raise this 

issue in their joint pretrial conference statement.

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.

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.

Case 1:15-cv-01637-JLT Document 20 Filed 04/05/16 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

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: April 5, 2016 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01637-JLT Document 20 Filed 04/05/16 Page 8 of 8