Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01555/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01555-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kristiana Smith
Plaintiff
Tehachapi Valley Healthcare District
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

KRISTIANA SMITH,

 Plaintiff,

v.

TEHACHAPI VALLEY HEALTHCARE 

DISTRICT, et al.

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1: 14-CV-01555 - LJO - JLT

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

Pleading Amendment Deadline: 4/15/2015

Discovery Deadlines:

Initial Disclosures: 1/30/2015

Non-Expert: 9/30/2015

Expert: 10/15/2015

Mid-Discovery Status Conference: 

 5/15/2015 at 9:00 a.m.

Non-Dispositive Motion Deadlines:

Filing: 10/26/2015

Hearing: 11/23/2015

Dispositive Motion Deadlines: 

Filing: 12/8/2015

Hearing: 1/20/2016

Pre-Trial Conference:

3/16/2016 at 8:30 a.m.

Courtroom 4

Trial: 5/10/2016 at 8:30 a.m.

 Courtroom 4

 Jury trial: 3-7 days

 

Case 1:14-cv-01555-JLT Document 15 Filed 01/20/15 Page 1 of 7
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

January 20, 2015.

II. Appearances of Counsel

Christopher Knauf appeared on behalf of Plaintiff.

T. Mark Smith 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 

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. The 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. 

Plaintiff has indicated her willingness to consent to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (Doc. 12.) 

Defendant is 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 Defendant 

will consent to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge.

Case 1:14-cv-01555-JLT Document 15 Filed 01/20/15 Page 2 of 7
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

IV. Pleading Amendment Deadline

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

motion to amend, no later than April 15, 2015.

V. 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 January 30, 2015.

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

September 30, 2015, and all discovery pertaining to experts on or before October 15, 2015.

The parties are directed to disclose all expert witnesses1, in writing, on or before August 14, 

2015, and to disclose all rebuttal experts on or before September 8, 2015. 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 

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 May 15, 2015 at 9:00 a.m. before the 

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

California, 93301. A Joint Mid-Discovery Status Conference Report, carefully prepared and executed 

by all counsel, shall be electronically filed in CM/ECF, one full week prior to the Conference, and shall 

be e-mailed, in Word 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 

 

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 1:14-cv-01555-JLT Document 15 Filed 01/20/15 Page 3 of 7
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

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. 

VI. Pre-Trial Motion Schedule

All non-dispositive pre-trial motions, including any discovery motions, shall be filed no later 

than October 26, 2015, and heard on or before November 23, 2015. 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 

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 December 8, 2015, and heard no 

later than January 20, 2016, in Courtroom 4 at 8:30 a.m. before the Honorable Lawrence J. O'Neill, 

United States District Court Judge. In scheduling such motions, counsel shall comply with Fed. R.

Civ. P. 56 and Local Rules 230 and 260.

///

Case 1:14-cv-01555-JLT Document 15 Filed 01/20/15 Page 4 of 7
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

VII. 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; 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 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 as 

ordered above, or set forth a statement of good cause for the failure to meet and confer. 

VIII. Pre-Trial Conference Date

March 16, 2016, at 8:30 a.m. in Courtroom 4 before Judge O'Neill.

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 O'Neill's chambers, by email at LJOorders@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.

///

Case 1:14-cv-01555-JLT Document 15 Filed 01/20/15 Page 5 of 7
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

IX. Trial Date

May 10, 2016, at 8:30 a.m. in Courtroom 4 before the Honorable Lawrence J. O'Neill, United 

States District Court Judge.

A. This is a jury trial.

B. Counsels' Estimate of Trial Time: 3-7 days. 

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

California, Rule 285.

X. Settlement Conference

If the parties believe the action is in a settlement posture and desire a conference with the Court, 

they may file a joint written request for a settlement conference, including suggested dates. The 

settlement conference will be conducted by Magistrate Judge Thurston. If any party prefers that the 

settlement conference be conducted by a judicial officer not assigned to this action, that party is 

directed to notify the Court no later than 60 days in advance of the scheduled settlement 

conference to allow sufficient time for another judicial officer to be assigned to handle the conference.

XI. Request for Bifurcation, Appointment of Special Master, or other 

Techniques to Shorten Trial

Not applicable at this time.

XII. Related Matters Pending

There are no pending related matters.

XIII. 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.

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 

Case 1:14-cv-01555-JLT Document 15 Filed 01/20/15 Page 6 of 7
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

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.

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: January 20, 2015 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01555-JLT Document 15 Filed 01/20/15 Page 7 of 7