Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00206/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00206-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
County of Kern
Defendant
Lore Kaplan
Plaintiff
Gabriel Lopez
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

LORE KAPLAN,

 Plaintiff,

v.

COUNTY OF KERN, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1: 14-CV-00206-AWI - JLT

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

Pleading Amendment Deadline: 12/15/2014

Discovery Deadlines: 

Initial Disclosures: 10/15/2014

Non-Expert: 11/24/2015

Expert: 2/1/2016

Mid-Discovery Status Conference: 

 7/6/2015 at 9:00 a.m.

Non-Dispositive Motion Deadlines:

Filing: 2/16/2016

Hearing: 3/15/2016

Dispositive Motion Deadlines: 

Filing: 3/28/2016

Hearing: 5/9/2016

Settlement Conference:

5/5/2016 at 9:30 a.m.

 510 19th Street, Bakersfield, CA

Pre-Trial Conference:

6/29/2016 at 10:00 a.m.

Courtroom 2

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

 Courtroom 2

 Jury trial: 5-7 days

Case 1:14-cv-00206-DAD-JLT Document 20 Filed 09/15/14 Page 1 of 9
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

September 15, 2014.

II. Appearances of Counsel

Neil Gehlawat appeared on behalf of Plaintiff.

Judith Denny appeared on behalf of Defendant County of Kern. Max Koenig appeared on 

behalf of Defendant Gabriel Lopez.

III. Information Concerning the Court’s Schedule

Out of fairness, the Court believes it is necessary to forewarn litigants that the Fresno Division 

of the Eastern District of California now has the heaviest District Court Judge caseload in the entire 

nation. While the Court will use its best efforts to resolve this case and all other civil cases in a timely 

manner, the parties are admonished that not all of the parties’ needs and expectations may be met as 

expeditiously as desired. As multiple trials are now being set to begin upon the same date, parties may 

find their case trailing with little notice before the trial begins. The law requires that the Court give any 

criminal trial priority over civil trials or any other matter. The Court must proceed with a criminal trial 

even if a civil trial was filed earlier and set for trial first. Continuances of any civil trial under these 

circumstances will no longer be entertained, absent a specific and stated finding of good cause. All 

parties should be informed that any civil trial set to begin during the time a criminal trial is proceeding 

will trail the completion of the criminal trial. 

The parties are reminded of the availability of a United States Magistrate Judge to conduct all 

proceedings in this action. A United States Magistrate Judge is available to 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. The same jury pool is used by both United States Magistrate Judges and United States 

District Court Judges. 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. However, the parties are 

hereby informed that no substantive rulings or decisions will be affected by whether a party chooses to 

consent.

Finally, 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 

Case 1:14-cv-00206-DAD-JLT Document 20 Filed 09/15/14 Page 2 of 9
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

to the Local Rules, Appendix A, 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 December 15, 2014.

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 October 15, 2014.

Counsel agree that the deposition of Gabriel Lopez may be taken only one despite that there is a 

second case, Doe v. County of Kern, Case No.: 1:14-cv-02056, in which he is a defendant and similar 

conduct is alleged. Thus, at the sole deposition taken in these matters, all issues raised in both cases 

should be explored and the transcript may be used in both cases.

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

November 24, 2015, and all discovery pertaining to experts on or before February 1, 2016.

The parties are directed to disclose all expert witnesses, in writing, on or before December 7, 

2015, and to disclose all rebuttal experts on or before January 4, 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.

1

 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 

 

1

In the event an expert will offer opinions related to an independent medical or mental health evaluation, this 

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-00206-DAD-JLT Document 20 Filed 09/15/14 Page 3 of 9
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

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 6, 2015 at 9:00 a.m. before the 

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

California. 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 emailed, 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 

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 February 16, 2016, and heard on or before March 15, 2016. Non-dispositive motions are heard 

at 9:00 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. 

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.

Case 1:14-cv-00206-DAD-JLT Document 20 Filed 09/15/14 Page 4 of 9
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

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 March 28, 2016, and heard no later 

than May 9, 2016, in Courtroom 2 at 8:30 a.m. before the Honorable Anthony W. Ishii, United States 

District Court Judge. In scheduling such motions, counsel shall comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 and 

Local Rules 230 and 260.

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

June 29, 2016, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 2 before Judge Ishii.

Case 1:14-cv-00206-DAD-JLT Document 20 Filed 09/15/14 Page 5 of 9
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 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 Ishii's chambers, by email at AWIOrders@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.

IX. Trial Date

August 30, 2016, at 8:30 a.m. in Courtroom 2 before the Honorable Anthony W. Ishii, United 

States District Court Judge.

A. This is a jury trial.

B. Counsels' Estimate of Trial Time: 5-7 days. 

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

California, Rule 285.

X. Settlement Conference

A Settlement Conference is scheduled for May 5, 2016 at 9:30 a.m., located at 510 19th Street, 

Bakersfield, California. The settlement conference will be conducted by Magistrate Judge Thurston. If 

any party prefers that the settlement conference be conducted by a judicial officer who is not 

assigned to this case, 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.

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 terms2at the conference. Consideration of settlement is a 

 

2

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 

Case 1:14-cv-00206-DAD-JLT Document 20 Filed 09/15/14 Page 6 of 9
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

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 meaningful3settlement 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 including 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 JLTOrders@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 

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. 

 

authority, if he or she deems it appropriate, to settle the action on terms consistent with the opposing party's most recent 

demand.

3

“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. If, however, the offering party is only willing to offer a settlement which it knows the other party will not 

accept, this should trigger a recognition the case is not in a settlement posture and the parties should confer about 

continuing or vacating the settlement conference via stipulation.

Case 1:14-cv-00206-DAD-JLT Document 20 Filed 09/15/14 Page 7 of 9
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

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.

XI. Requests 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 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. Other

At the conference, counsel reported that Defendant Lopez has criminal charges pending 

regarding conduct that is implicated by this matter. Counsel SHALL keep abreast of the criminal 

matter and, as necessary, take action should the criminal proceedings impeded the progress of this case. 

In that event, counsel should consider all options including whether to seek a stay of this case.

XV. 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.

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 

Case 1:14-cv-00206-DAD-JLT Document 20 Filed 09/15/14 Page 8 of 9
9

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

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: September 15, 2014 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00206-DAD-JLT Document 20 Filed 09/15/14 Page 9 of 9