Deveroux v. County of Kern

District Court, E.D. California·Decided October 4, 2023·No. 1:23-cv-00239·Unknown

Opinion

4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ALAIN DEVEROUX AND JENNIFER Case No. 1:23-cv-00239-CDB VALLE, Individually, and as successors 12 in interest of JULIEN DEVEROUX, SCHEDULING ORDER (Fed. R. Civ. P. 16)

13 Plaintiffs,

14 v. Discovery Deadlines: Non-Expert: May 3, 2024 15 COUNTY OF KERN, et al., Expert: July 8, 2024 16 Defendants. Mid-Discovery Conf.: March 15, 2024 17 Non-Dispositive Motion Deadlines: Filing: July 22, 2024 18 Hearing: August 27, 2024

19 Dispositive Motion Deadlines: Filing: September 16, 2024 20 Hearing: October 21, 2024

21 Pre-Trial Conf.: December 10, 2024 (10:30am) 510 19th Street, Bakersfield 22 Trial: January 27, 2025 (8:30am) 23 510 19th Street, Bakersfield (4-5 days) 24 25 26 Plaintiffs are the parents and successors in interest of Julien Deveroux (the Decedent). 27 Plaintiffs bring claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants County of Kern and Austin Roberts 28 for excessive force; failure to provide treatment for serious medical needs; deprivation of 1 constitutional rights (including the rights for freedom of association and substantive due process); as 2 well as municipal and supervisory liability. Plaintiffs also raise claims under California Civil Code § 3 52.1(b); California Government Code § 845.6 — failure to summon medical care; and negligence and 4 wrongful death. The Court convened a scheduling conference off the record1 on October 4, 2023. Jeff 5 Dominic Price appeared on behalf of Plaintiffs. Kathleen Rivera appeared on behalf of Defendants. 6 I. Fictitiously-Named Defendants 7 All claims as to “Doe” Defendants, including any counterclaims and cross-claims, are hereby 8 Dismissed. 9 II. Pleading Amendment 10 Any motions to amend the pleadings must be filed by March 11, 2024. The parties should not 11 construe a timely filing of a motion or stipulation requesting leave to amend the pleadings to 12 necessarily constitute good cause to modify the existing schedule, if necessary. All proposed 13 amendments must (A) be supported by good cause pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b) if the amendment 14 requires any modification to the existing schedule, see Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 15 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992), and (B) establish, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a), that such an amendment 16 is not (1) prejudicial to the opposing party, (2) the product of undue delay, (3) proposed in bad faith, or 17 (4) futile. See Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). 18 III. Discovery Plan and Cut-Off Date 19 The parties have exchanged their initial disclosures required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1). 20 The parties are ordered to complete all discovery pertaining to non-experts on or before May 3, 21 2024, and all discovery pertaining to experts on or before July 8, 2024. 22 The parties are directed to disclose all expert witnesses, in writing, on or before May 17, 2024, 23 and to disclose all rebuttal experts on or before June 7, 2024. The written designation of retained and 24 non-retained experts shall be made pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 26(a)(2), (A), (B), and (C) and 25 shall include all information required thereunder. Failure to designate experts in compliance with this 26 27

28 1 Counsel for Plaintiffs initially objected to proceeding off the record, but after a brief exchange with the Court, withdrew his objection and consented to proceeding off the record. 1 order may result in the Court excluding the testimony or other evidence offered through such experts 2 that are not disclosed pursuant to this order. 3 The provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4) and (5) shall apply to all discovery relating to 4 experts and their opinions. Experts must be fully prepared to be examined on all subjects and opinions 5 included in the designation. Failure to comply may result in the imposition of sanctions, which may 6 include striking the expert designation and preclusion of expert testimony. 7 The provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e) regarding a party’s duty to timely supplement 8 disclosures and responses to discovery requests will be strictly enforced. 9 A mid-discovery status conference is scheduled for March 15, 2024, at 9:30 a.m. before 10 Magistrate Judge Christopher D. Baker. Counsel SHALL file a joint mid-discovery status conference 11 report no later than one week before the conference. Counsel also SHALL lodge the status report via 12 e-mail to CDBorders@caed.uscourts.gov. The joint status report SHALL outline the discovery 13 counsel have completed and that which needs to be completed as well as any impediments to 14 completing the discovery within the deadlines set forth in this order. Counsel SHALL discuss 15 settlement and certify in the joint status report (1) that they have met/conferred regarding settlement, 16 and (2) proposed dates for convening a settlement conference with an unassigned magistrate judge. 17 IV. Pre-Trial Motion Schedule / Informal Discovery Dispute Conferences 18 All non-dispositive pre-trial motions, including any discovery motions, shall be filed by July 19 22, 20242 and heard on or before August 27, 2024. For these hearings and at the direction of the 20 Courtroom Deputy Clerk, the Court may direct counsel to appear remotely (via Zoom). For hearings 21 noticed to occur in-person, the Court may permit counsel to appear remotely (via Zoom) provided the 22 Courtroom Deputy Clerk receives a written notice of the request to appear remotely no later than five 23 court days before the noticed hearing date. 24 No motion to amend or stipulation to amend the case schedule will be entertained unless it is 25 filed at least three days before the first deadline the parties wish to extend. 26 27 2 Non-dispositive motions related to non-expert discovery SHALL be filed within a reasonable 28 time of discovery of the dispute, but in no event later than 30 days after the expiration of the non-expert discovery deadline. 1 No written discovery motions shall be filed without the prior approval of Magistrate Judge 2 Baker. A party with a discovery dispute must first confer with the opposing party in a good faith 3 effort to resolve by agreement the issues in dispute. If that good faith effort is unsuccessful, the 4 requesting party promptly shall seek a conference with all involved parties and Magistrate Judge 5 Baker. To schedule this conference, the parties should contact the Courtroom Deputy Clerk, Susan 6 Hall, at (661) 326-6620 or via email at SHall@caed.uscourts.gov. At least two days before the 7 conference, counsel SHALL file a joint, informal letter brief detailing each party’s position. Each 8 party’s narrative shall not exceed three pages, excluding exhibits. At the commencement of the 9 conference, if the parties jointly agree to Magistrate Judge Baker’s consideration and resolution of the 10 discovery disputes outside the formal Local Rule 251 procedures, the Court will entertain arguments 11 by the parties and issue a ruling.

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

Deveroux v. County of Kern, (E.D. Cal. 2023).

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

Related

Foman v. Davis
371 U.S. 178 (Supreme Court, 1962)
The Falco
15 F.2d 604 (E.D. New York, 1926)