Cherry v. Tyler

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. California
DecidedAugust 14, 2019
Docket1:18-cv-01268
StatusUnknown

This text of Cherry v. Tyler (Cherry v. Tyler) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Cherry v. Tyler, (E.D. Cal. 2019).

Opinion

1 2 3 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ADORTHUS CHERRY, CASE NO. 1:18-CV-01268 LJO EPG 8 Plaintiff, (CORRECTED) SCHEDULING CONFERENCE ORDER 9 Initial Disclosures: May 16, 2019 10 v. Nonexpert 11 Discovery Cutoff: December 20, 2019

12 Expert Disclosure: January 31, 2020 13 Rebuttal 14 Expert Disclosure: February 21, 2020

15 Expert Discovery Cutoff: March 13, 2020 16 JAMES TYLER ET AL., Dispositive Motion 17 Filing Deadline: May 8, 2020 Defendants. 18 Settlement Conf.: Date: Not Set

19 Mid-Discovery Conf: Date: October 8, 2019 Time:9:30 a.m. 20 Dept:10

21 Pretrial Conf.: Date: September 8, 2020 Time:8:15 a.m. 22 Dept: 4 23 Jury Trial: Date: November 17, 2020 (5-7 day estimate) Time:8:30 a.m. 24 Dept: 4 25

28 1 This Court conducted a scheduling conference on May 2, 2019. Counsel Randolph Daar 2 appeared on behalf of Plaintiff. Counsel David Mehretu appeared on behalf of Defendants. 3 Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b), this Court sets a schedule for this action. 4 I. Amendment To The Parties’ Pleadings 5 Parties do not presently anticipate seeking to further amend. The parties are advised that 6 the filing of motions and/or stipulations requesting leave to amend the pleadings does not imply 7 good cause to modify the existing schedule. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 (b) (4); see also Johnson v. 8 Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F. 2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). Moreover, any request for 9 amendment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) must not be: (1) prejudicial to the opposing party; (2) the 10 product of undue delay; (3) proposed in bad faith; or (4) futile. See Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 11 178, 182 (1962). 12 II. Consent To Magistrate Judge 13 The parties have not consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. Out of fairness, the Court 14 believes it is necessary to forewarn litigants that the Fresno Division of the Eastern District of 15 California now has the heaviest District Court Judge caseload in the entire nation. While the 16 Court will use its best efforts to resolve this case and all other civil cases in a timely manner, the 17 parties are advised that not all of the parties’ needs and expectations may be met as expeditiously 18 as desired. As multiple trials are now being set to begin upon the same date, parties may find 19 their case trailing with little notice before the trial begins. The law requires that the Court give 20 any criminal trial priority over civil trials or any other matter. The Court must proceed with a 21 criminal trial even if a civil trial was filed earlier and set for trial first. Continuances of any civil 22 trial under these circumstances will no longer be entertained, absent a specific and stated finding 23 of good cause. All parties should be informed that any civil trial set to begin during the time a 24 criminal trial is proceeding will trail the completion of the criminal trial. 25 The parties are reminded of the availability of United States Magistrate Judge Erica P. 26 Grosjean to conduct all proceedings in this action. A United States Magistrate Judge is available 27 to conduct trials, including entry of final judgment, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), Federal Rule 28 of Civil Procedure 73, and Local Rule 305. The same jury pool is used by both United States 1 Magistrate Judges and United States District Court Judges. Any appeal from a judgment entered 2 by a United States Magistrate Judge is taken directly to the United States Court of Appeal for the 3 Ninth Circuit. However, the parties are hereby informed that no substantive rulings or decisions 4 will be affected by whether a party chooses to consent. 5 Finally, the Fresno Division of the Eastern District of California, whenever possible, is 6 utilizing United States Article III District Court Judges from throughout the nation as Visiting 7 Judges. Pursuant to the Local Rules, Appendix A, reassignments will be random, and the parties 8 will receive no advance notice before their case is reassigned to an Article III District Court Judge 9 from outside of the Eastern District of California. Therefore, the parties are directed to consider 10 consenting to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction to conduct all further proceedings, including trial. 11 III. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) 12 Initial disclosures shall be completed by May 16, 2019. 13 IV. Discovery Cutoffs And Limits 14 All non-expert discovery shall be completed no later than December 20, 2019. Initial 15 expert witness disclosures shall be served no later than January 31, 2020. Rebuttal expert 16 witness disclosures shall be served no later than February 21, 2020. Such disclosures must be 17 made pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(A), (B) and (C), and shall include all information 18 required thereunder. In addition, Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e) specifically 19 apply to discovery relating to expert witnesses and their opinions. Each expert witness must be 20 fully prepared to be examined on all subjects and opinions included in the disclosures. Failure to 21 comply with these requirements will result in the imposition of appropriate sanctions, including 22 the preclusion of the expert’s testimony, or of other evidence offered through the expert. 23 All expert discovery shall be completed no later than March 13, 2020. The parties are 24 advised that motions to compel must be filed in advance of the discovery deadlines so that the 25 Court may grant effective relief within the allotted discovery time. A party’s failure to have a 26 discovery dispute heard sufficiently in advance of the discovery cutoff may result in denial of the 27 motion as untimely. 28 /// 1 A Mid-Discovery Status Conference is set for October 8, 2019, at 9:30 a.m. in 2 Courtroom 10, before Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean. The parties are directed to file a joint 3 report, of up to five (5) pages, outlining the status of the case, any additional discovery still 4 planned, potential for settlement, and any other issues pending that would benefit from the Court's 5 assistance/direction. The parties shall file the report one full week prior to the conference, and 6 email a copy, in Word format, to epgorders@caed.uscourts.gov. If the parties are appearing 7 telephonically, each party shall dial 1 (888) 251-2909 and enter access code 1024453. 8 V. Pretrial Motion Schedule 9 A. General Information Regarding Filing Motions 10 The parties are advised that unless prior leave of the Court is obtained before the filing 11 deadline,1 all moving and opposition briefs or legal memoranda, including joint statements of 12 discovery disputes, filed in civil cases before Magistrate Judge Grosjean, shall not exceed twenty- 13 five (25) pages. Reply briefs by the moving party shall not exceed ten (10) pages. These page 14 limits do not include exhibits. When scheduling motions (other than discovery motions) the 15 parties shall comply with Local Rule 230.

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

Related

Wellens v. Dillon
371 U.S. 11 (Supreme Court, 1962)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Cherry v. Tyler, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cherry-v-tyler-caed-2019.