Booth v. United States

District Court, E.D. California·Decided January 22, 2020·No. 2:19-cv-01612·Unknown

Opinion

RENEE BOOTH, BRADLEY No. 2:19-cv-01612-KJM-CKD CONVERSE, K.C., Plaintiff, STATUS (PRETRIAL SCHEDULING) v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant.

An initial scheduling conference was held in this case on January 16, 2020. David Smith appeared for plaintiff; Victoria Boesch appeared for defendant. Having reviewed the parties’ Joint Status Report filed on December 17, 2019, and discussed a schedule for the case with counsel at the hearing, the court makes the following orders: All named defendants have been served and no further service is permitted without leave of court, good cause having been shown. ///// ///// II. ADDITIONAL PARTIES/AMENDMENTS/PLEADINGS No further joinder of parties or amendments to pleadings is permitted without leave of court, good cause having been shown. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b); Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604 (9th Cir. 1992). III. JURISDICTION/VENUE Jurisdiction is predicated upon 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2671-80. Jurisdiction and venue are not disputed. Initial disclosures as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a) shall be completed by January 24, 2020. All discovery shall be completed by September 18, 2020. 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 order if necessary and, where discovery has been ordered, the order has been obeyed. All motions to compel discovery must be noticed on the magistrate judge’s calendar in accordance with the local rules of this court. While the assigned magistrate judge reviews proposed discovery phase protective orders, requests to seal or redact are decided by Judge Mueller as discussed in more detail below. In addition, while the assigned magistrate judge handles discovery motions, the magistrate judge cannot change the schedule set in this order, except that the magistrate judge may modify a discovery cutoff to the extent such modification does not have the effect of requiring a change to the balance of the schedule. The court approves the parties’ agreement that the scope of discovery shall not include documents prepared by counsel on or after of March 15, 2018, or confidential attorney- client communications occurring on or after March 15, 2018, and that such documents or information shall be deemed non-responsive and may be withheld without the need to assert or interpose an objection or seek a protective order, except as provided in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(4)(C) for certain communications with or documents provided to testifying experts. The court also approves the agreement that privilege logs need not be produced unless and until requested by counsel in connection with specific objections that have been asserted. Plaintiff counsel is to designate in writing and serve upon all other parties the name, address, and area of expertise of each expert that they propose to tender at trial not later than September 25, 2020. Defense counsel is to designate in writing and serve upon all other parties the name, address, and area of expertise of each expert that they propose to tender at trial not later than October 30, 2020. The designations shall be accompanied by a written report prepared and signed by the witness. The reports shall comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B). By November 13, 2020, any party who previously disclosed expert witnesses may submit a rebuttal list of expert witnesses who will express an opinion on a subject covered by an expert designated by an adverse party, if the party rebutting an expert witness designation has not previously retained an expert to testify on that subject. The rebuttal designation shall be accompanied by a written report, which shall also comply with the conditions stated above. Failure of a party to comply with the disclosure schedule as set forth above in all likelihood will preclude that party from calling the expert witness at the time of trial. An expert witness not appearing on the designation will not be permitted to testify unless the party offering the witness demonstrates: (a) that the necessity for the witness could not have been reasonably anticipated at the time the list was proffered; (b) that the court and opposing counsel were promptly notified upon discovery of the witness; and (c) that the witness was promptly made available for deposition. For purposes of this scheduling order, an “expert” is any person who may be used at trial to present evidence under Rules 702, 703 and 705 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, which include both “percipient experts” (persons who, because of their expertise, have rendered expert opinions in the normal course of their work duties or observations pertinent to the issues in the case) and “retained experts” (persons specifically designated by a party to be a testifying expert for the purposes of litigation). A party shall identify whether a disclosed expert is percipient, retained, or both. It will be assumed that a party designating a retained expert has acquired the express permission of the witness to be so listed. Parties designating percipient experts must state in the designation who is responsible for arranging the deposition of such persons. All experts designated are to be fully prepared at the time of designation to render an informed opinion, and give the bases for their opinion, so that they will be able to give full and complete testimony at any deposition taken by the opposing party. Experts will not be permitted to testify at trial as to any information gathered or evaluated, or opinion formed, after deposition taken subsequent to designation. All expert discovery shall be completed by February 5, 2021. All dispositive motions, except motions for continuances, temporary restraining orders or other emergency applications, shall be heard no later than April 16, 2021.1 The parties may obtain available hearing dates by checking Judge Mueller’s page on the court’s website. All purely legal issues are to be resolved by timely pretrial motions. Local Rule 230 governs the calendaring and procedures of civil motions; the following provisions also apply: (a) The opposition and reply must be filed by 4:00 p.m. on the day due; and (b) When the last day for filing an opposition brief falls on a legal holiday, the opposition brief shall be filed on the last court day immediately preceding the legal holiday. Failure to comply with Local Rule 230(c), as modified by this order, 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). The court values the importance of training young attorneys. The parties are encouraged to consider assigning oral argument to a young attorney. If a written request for oral argument is filed before a hearing, stating an attorney of four or fewer years out of law school will argue the oral argument, then the court will ordinarily hold the hearing, although the court’s schedule and calendar may require the hearing to be reset. Otherwise, the court may find it appropriate in some actions to sub

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Booth v. United States, (E.D. Cal. 2020).

Booth v. United States (Booth v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related