Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01910/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01910-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
BK Food Mart
Defendant
BK Gill, Inc.
Defendant
Scott N. Johnson
Plaintiff

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

SCOTT N. JOHNSON, )

) 2:06-cv-1910-GEB-KJM

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) STATUS (PRETRIAL

) SCHEDULING) ORDER

BK GILL, INC., individually and )

d/b/a BK Food Mart, )

) 

Defendant. )

1

)

The status (pretrial scheduling) conference scheduled for

November 20, 2006, is vacated since the parties’ Joint Status Report

(“JSR”) indicates that the following Order should issue.

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 August 25, 2006, at 2

n.2 (indicating that if Plaintiff or Plaintiffs fail to set forth in

the Joint Status Report a date by when the identities of any "Doe"

defendants are expected to be discovered, the claims against Doe

Case 2:06-cv-01910-GEB -KJM Document 12 Filed 11/15/06 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

Defendant’s statement in the JSR that it “would like to 2

reserve the right to add third parties at a later date” and the parties’

statements that they “reserve the right” to amend the pleadings are too

imprecise to except the referenced possible amendments from the "good

cause" standard. "Parties anticipating possible amendments . . . have

an 'unflagging obligation' to alert the Rule 16 scheduling judge of the

. . . timing of such anticipated amendments in their status reports so

that the judge can consider whether such amendments may properly be

sought solely under the Rule 15(a) standard, and whether structuring

discovery pertinent to the parties' decision whether to amend is

feasible." Jackson v. Laureate, Inc., 186 F.R.D. 605, 608 (E.D. Cal.

1999) (citation omitted). 

2

defendants would be deemed abandoned and a dismissal order would

follow).

SERVICE, JOINDER OF ADDITIONAL PARTIES, AMENDMENT2

No further service, joinder of parties or amendments to

pleadings is permitted, except with leave of Court, good cause having

been shown. 

DISCOVERY

In the JSR, Defendant “request[s] a 90 day hold on discovery

to allow the parties to engage in meaningful settlement discussions

without incurring unnecessary litigation expenses.” (JSR at 4.) 

Since the discovery deadlines set herein provide ample time for the

parties to attempt settlement, Defendant’s request is denied.

All discovery shall be completed by January 10, 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,

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

Case 2:06-cv-01910-GEB -KJM Document 12 Filed 11/15/06 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 3

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, 4

temporary restraining orders, emergency applications, or motions under

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

3

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

compliance shall have expired.3

Each party shall comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

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

on or before August 10, 2007, and with the rebuttal expert disclosures

authorized under the Rule on or before September 10, 2007. 

MOTION HEARING SCHEDULE

The last hearing date for motions shall be March 10, 2008,

at 9:00 a.m.4

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 2:06-cv-01910-GEB -KJM Document 12 Filed 11/15/06 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 May 12, 2008, at

2:30 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. Shareholders Protective Comm., 770 F.2d 866, 869 (9th Cir. 1985). 

The parties shall file a JOINT pretrial statement with the

Court not later than seven (7) days prior to the final pretrial

Case 2:06-cv-01910-GEB -KJM Document 12 Filed 11/15/06 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 5

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

conference. The joint pretrial statement shall specify the issues 5

for 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. District 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 deemed . . .

withdrawn, notwithstanding the contentions of any pleadings or other

papers previously filed [in the action]”). 

Case 2:06-cv-01910-GEB -KJM Document 12 Filed 11/15/06 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

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 August 12, 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: November 14, 2006

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cv-01910-GEB -KJM Document 12 Filed 11/15/06 Page 6 of 6