Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00355/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00355-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
James Chitwood
Plaintiff
Northwest Airlines, Inc.
Defendant

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 The caption has been amended according to the Dismissal of Doe 1

Defendants portion of this Order.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES CHITWOOD, )

) 2:07-cv-355-GEB-KJM

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) STATUS (PRETRIAL

) SCHEDULING) ORDER

NORTHWEST AIRLINES, INC., )

) 

Defendant. )

1

)

The status (pretrial scheduling) conference scheduled in

this case for June 4, 2007, is vacated since the joint status report

(“JSR”) submitted by the parties obviates the need for the conference. 

The following Order issues based on the JSR and available dates.

DISMISSAL OF DOE DEFENDANTS

Since Plaintiff has not justified Doe defendants remaining 

in this action, Does 1 through 10 are dismissed. See Order Setting

Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference filed February 22, 2007 at 2

n.2 (indicating that if Plaintiff fails to set forth in the JSR a date

by when the identities of any “Doe” defendants are expected to be

Case 2:07-cv-00355-GEB -KJM Document 9 Filed 05/24/07 Page 1 of 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

2

discovered, the claims against Doe defendants would be deemed

abandoned and a dismissal order would follow).

SERVICE, JOINDER OF ADDITIONAL PARTIES, AMENDMENT 

Plaintiff states in the JSR that “other individuals will be

sought to be joined as soon as Plaintiff’s counsel learns the names

and addresses of the actual individuals who [engaged in the conduct

that allegedly harmed Plaintiff].” (JSR at 2.) Plaintiff has not

stated how much time is needed to discover such information;

therefore, Plaintiff has ninety (90) days in which to seek leave of

Court to join such individuals. No other service, joinder of parties

or amendments to pleadings is permitted, except with leave of Court,

good cause having been shown. 

SERVICE OF STATUS ORDER

If any party is joined pursuant to the leave given above,

concurrently with the service of process on said party, the newlyjoined party shall be served with a copy of this Order. 

Any newly-joined party has thirty (30) days after said

service within which to file a “Notice of Proposed Modification of

Status Order.” A hearing on the Notice will be scheduled, if

necessary. Although a newly-joined party’s proposed modification

filed within this thirty day period will not have to meet the good

cause standard, no further amendments will be permitted except with

leave of Court, good cause having been shown.

DISCOVERY

All discovery shall be completed by February 28, 2008. In

this context, “completed” means that all discovery shall have been

conducted so that all depositions have been taken and any disputes

relative to discovery shall have been resolved by appropriate orders,

Case 2:07-cv-00355-GEB -KJM Document 9 Filed 05/24/07 Page 2 of 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

The parties are advised that the Magistrate Judges in the 2

Eastern District are responsible for resolving discovery disputes. See

Local Rule 72-302(c)(1). Accordingly, counsel shall direct all

discovery-related matters to the Magistrate Judge assigned to this case.

A party conducting discovery near the discovery “completion” date runs

the risk of losing the opportunity to have a judge resolve discovery

motions pursuant to the Local Rules.

This time deadline does not apply to motions for continuances, 3

temporary restraining orders, emergency applications, or motions under

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

3

if necessary, and, where discovery has been ordered, the order has

been complied with or, alternatively, the time allowed for such

compliance shall have expired.2

Each party shall comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

26(a)(2)’s initial expert witness disclosure and report requirements

on or before October 29, 2007, and with the rebuttal expert

disclosures authorized under the Rule on or before November 30, 2007.

MOTION HEARING SCHEDULE

The last hearing date for motions shall be April 21, 2008,

at 9:00 a.m.3

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

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:

Case 2:07-cv-00355-GEB -KJM Document 9 Filed 05/24/07 Page 3 of 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

4

(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 June 9, 2008, at

1:30 p.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

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

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

Case 2:07-cv-00355-GEB -KJM Document 9 Filed 05/24/07 Page 4 of 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

The failure of one or more of the parties to participate in 4

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. 

5

The parties shall file a JOINT pretrial statement no later

than seven (7) days prior to the final pretrial conference. The 4

joint pretrial statement shall specify the issues for trial and shall

estimate the length of the 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. Dist. 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 claim for relief or defense in whole or in part, or

affirmative matter not set forth in [the pretrial statement] shall be

Case 2:07-cv-00355-GEB -KJM Document 9 Filed 05/24/07 Page 5 of 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

6

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

Trial is set for September 9, 2008, commencing at 9:00 a.m. 

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: May 24, 2007

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:07-cv-00355-GEB -KJM Document 9 Filed 05/24/07 Page 6 of 6