Daher v. County of Sacramento

District Court, E.D. California·Decided February 14, 2025·No. 2:24-cv-02611·Unknown

Opinion

ELISA DAHER, No. 2:24-cv-02611-DC-SCR Plaintiff, v. SCHEDULING ORDER COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al., Defendant. Pursuant to Rule 16(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court has reviewed the parties’ joint status report (Doc. No. 28) and has determined that the court need not “consult[] with the parties’ attorneys and any unrepresented parties at a scheduling conference,” before issuing a scheduling order in this case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(1)(B). The named defendants have been served as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5. No further service is permitted without leave of court, good cause having been shown under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b). II. JOINDER OF ADDITIONAL PARTIES / AMENDMENT OF PLEADINGS The parties do not anticipate the joinder of additional parties or amendment of the pleadings. Any motions or stipulations requesting leave to amend the pleadings must be filed no later than August 29, 2025, which is a date proposed by the parties. 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 27 604 (9th Cir. 1992). The parties are advised that the filing of motions and/or stipulations requesting leave to amend the pleadings does not imply good cause to modify the existing schedule. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 (b)(4); see also Johnson, 975 F. 2d at 609. Moreover, any amendment requested under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) must not be: (1) prejudicial to the opposing party; (2) the product of undue delay; (3) proposed in bad faith; or (4) futile. See Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). Discovery matters that do not implicate the schedule of the case are referred to the assigned magistrate judge, who will hear all discovery disputes subject to his or her procedures. (The assigned magistrate judge’s initials follow the district judge’s initials next to the case number.) All discovery related filings must include the words “DISCOVERY MATTER” in the caption to ensure proper routing. Do not direct delivery of courtesy copies of these documents to the district judge. Counsel are directed to contact the magistrate judge’s courtroom deputy clerk to schedule discovery matters for hearing. All motions to compel discovery must be noticed on the assigned magistrate judge’s calendar in accordance with the local rules of this court and the magistrate judge’s own procedures. The written ruling of the assigned magistrate judge shall be final, subject to modification by the district court only where it has been shown that the magistrate judge’s order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). Pursuant to Local Rule 303, any party may file and serve a “Request for Reconsideration by the District Court of Magistrate Judge’s Ruling.” See L.R. 303(c). The requesting party must file and serve any such request within fourteen (14) days of service of a written ruling. L.R. 303(b). The request must specify which portions of the ruling are clearly erroneous or contrary to law and the basis for that contention with supporting points and authorities. L.R. 303(c). In addition, the assigned magistrate judge reviews proposed discovery phase protective orders sought by the parties pursuant to Local Rule 141.1. However, any requests to seal or redact in connection with trial or motions to be resolved by Judge Coggins must be directed to Judge Coggins and comply with her Standing Order and Local Rules 140 and 141. A. Rule 26(a) Initial Disclosures The parties shall serve their initial disclosures pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 26(a)(1) no later than February 20, 2025, which is a date proposed by the parties. Any parties served or joined after the issuance of this scheduling order shall “make the initial disclosures within 30 days after being served or joined,” as provided by Rule 26(a)(1)(D). B. Fact Discovery All fact discovery shall be completed1 no later than October 24, 2025, which is a date proposed by the parties. The court declines to adopt Plaintiff’s proposed limitations to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 and 30, which are unsupported by any citation to authority. (See Doc. No. 28 at 9.) Defendants do not propose any limitations or changes to the governing provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. C. Expert Discovery Disclosures of expert witnesses, if any, must be made pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(A), (B) and (C), and shall include all information required thereunder. Each expert witness must be fully prepared to be examined on all subjects and opinions included in the disclosures. Failure to comply with these requirements may result in the imposition of appropriate sanctions, including the preclusion of the expert’s testimony, or of other evidence offered through the expert. The parties shall disclose initial experts and produce reports in accordance with Federal 1 As used herein, the word “completed” means that all discovery shall have been conducted so that all depositions have been taken and any disputes relevant to discovery shall have been resolved by appropriate order if necessary and, where discovery has been ordered, the order has been obeyed. The parties are advised that motions to compel must be filed in advance of the discovery completion deadlines so that the court may grant effective relief within the allotted discovery time. A party’s failure to have a discovery dispute heard sufficiently in advance of the discovery cutoff may result in denial of the motion as untimely. Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) by no later than December 15, 2025, which is a date proposed by the parties. With regard to expert testimony intended solely for rebuttal, those experts shall be disclosed and reports produced in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) on or before January 15, 2026, which is a date proposed by the parties. All expert discovery shall be completed no later than February 5, 2026, which is a date proposed by the parties. All motions, except motions for continuances, temporary restraining orders, or other emergency applications, shall be filed on or before March 13, 2026, which is a date proposed by the parties, and shall be noticed for hearing before Judge Coggins on a date not more than 60 days from the date the motion is filed and on a date that is listed on Judge Coggins’s website as an available civil law and motion hearing date. Counsel are directed to refer to the local rules regarding the requirements for noticing and opposing such motions on the court’s regularly s

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

Daher v. County of Sacramento, (E.D. Cal. 2025).

Daher v. County of Sacramento (Daher v. County of Sacramento) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Foman v. Davis
371 U.S. 178 (Supreme Court, 1962)