EP. v. Tehachapi Unified School District

District Court, E.D. California·Decided May 15, 2024·No. 1:23-cv-01724·Unknown

Opinion

4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 E.P., by and through his guardian ad Case No. 1:23-cv-01724-JLT-CDB litem, Michel Hernandez-Disla, 12 SCHEDULING ORDER (Fed. R. Civ. P. 16) Plaintiff, 13 Rule 26 Disclosures: June 14, 2024 v. Pleading Amendment: July 15, 2024 14 Discovery Deadlines: TEHACHAPI UNIFIED SCHOOL Non-Expert: November 15, 2024 15 DISTRICT, et al., Expert: January 27, 2025 16 Defendants. Mid-Discovery Status Conf.: October 3, 2024 17 Non-Dispositive Motion Deadlines: Filing: February 10, 2025 18 Hearing: March 17, 2025, 10:30 a.m.

19 Dispositive Motion Deadlines: Filing: April 14, 2025 20 Hearing: May 27, 2025, 8:30 a.m.

21 Pre-Trial Conference: July 21, 2025, 1:30 p.m. 2500 Tulare Street, Fresno, CA 22 Trial: September 16, 2025, 8:30 a.m. 23 2500 Tulare Street, Fresno, CA (estimate 5 days) 24 25 26 On December 14, 2023, Plaintiff E.P. (“Plaintiff”) initiated this action with the filing of a 27 complaint against Defendants Tehachapi Unified School District and Jason Grimes (“Defendants”). 28 (Doc. 1). Plaintiff raises the following claims: (1) violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, (2) violation of 1 Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12132, (3) violation of Bane Act, Cal. Civ. Code. § 52.1, 2 (4) violation of mandatory statutory duty, Cal. Gov. Code § 815.6, (5) battery, and (6) negligent 3 hiring, supervision, or retention of employee. Id. On May 6, 2024, Defendant Tehachapi Unified 4 School District filed a crossclaim against Defendant Jason Grimes. (Doc. 33). 5 The parties convened via Zoom videoconference for a scheduling conference before Magistrate 6 Judge Christopher D. Baker on May 15, 2024. Goriune Dudukgian appeared on behalf of Plaintiff 7 E.P., Anthony N. DeMaria appeared on behalf of Defendant Tehachapi Unified School District, and 8 Ryan Kennedy appeared on behalf of Defendant Jason Grimes. 9 I. Magistrate Judge Consent 10 Currently there is no joint consent to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. 11 Notice of Congested Docket and Court Policy of Trailing 12 Due to the District Judges’ heavy caseload, the adopted policy of the Fresno Division of the 13 Eastern District is to trail all civil cases. The parties are hereby notified that for a trial date set before a 14 District Judge, the parties will trail indefinitely behind any higher priority criminal or older civil case 15 set on the same date until a courtroom becomes available. The trial date will not be reset. 16 The Magistrate Judges’ availability is far more realistic and accommodating to parties than that 17 of the District Judges who carry the heaviest caseloads in the nation and who must prioritize criminal 18 and older civil cases over more recently filed civil cases. A Magistrate Judge may conduct trials, 19 including entry of final judgment, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 73, 20 and Local Rule 305. Any appeal from a judgment entered by a Magistrate Judge is taken directly to 21 the United States Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit. 22 Therefore, the parties are directed to consider consenting to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction to 23 conduct all further proceedings, including trial, and to file a consent/decline form (provided by the 24 Court at the inception of this case) indicating whether they will consent to the jurisdiction of the 25 Magistrate Judge. 26 II. Pleading Amendment 27 Any motions to amend the pleadings, including to add or substitute parties (including Doe 28 defendants) and/or allegations and claims, must be filed by July 15, 2024. Filing a motion and/or 1 stipulation requesting leave to amend the pleadings does not reflect on the propriety of the amendment 2 or imply good cause to modify the existing schedule, if necessary. All proposed amendments must 3 (A) be supported by good cause pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b) if the amendment requires any 4 modification to the existing schedule, see Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 5 (9th Cir. 1992), and (B) establish, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a), that such an amendment is not (1) 6 prejudicial to the opposing party, (2) the product of undue delay, (3) proposed in bad faith, or (4) 7 futile, see Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). 8 III. Discovery Plan and Cut-Off Date 9 The parties shall exchange the initial disclosures required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) by no 10 later than June 14, 2024. 11 The parties are ordered to complete all discovery pertaining to non-experts on or before 12 November 15, 2024, and all discovery pertaining to experts on or before January 27, 2025. 13 The parties are directed to disclose all expert witnesses1, in writing, on or before November 14 29, 2024, and to disclose all rebuttal experts on or before December 27, 2024. The written 15 designation of retained and non-retained experts shall be made pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 16 26(a)(2), (A), (B), and (C) and shall include all information required thereunder. Failure to designate 17 experts in compliance with this order may result in the Court excluding the testimony or other 18 evidence offered through such experts that are not disclosed pursuant to this order. 19 The provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4) and (5) shall apply to all discovery relating to 20 experts and their opinions. Experts must be fully prepared to be examined on all subjects and opinions 21 included in the designation. Failure to comply will result in the imposition of sanctions, which may 22 include striking the expert designation and preclusion of expert testimony. 23 The provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e) regarding a party’s duty to timely supplement 24 disclosures and responses to discovery requests will be strictly enforced. 25 A mid-discovery status conference is scheduled for October 3, 2024, at 9:30 a.m. before Judge 26 27 1 In the event an expert will offer opinions related to an independent medical or mental health 28 evaluation, the examination SHALL occur sufficiently in advance of the disclosure deadline so the expert’s report fully details the expert’s opinions in this regard. 1 Baker. Counsel SHALL file a joint mid-discovery status conference report no later than one week 2 before the conference. Counsel also SHALL lodge the joint status report via e-mail to 3 CDBorders@caed.uscourts.gov. The joint status report SHALL outline the discovery counsel have 4 completed and that which needs to be completed as well as any impediments to completing the 5 discovery within the deadlines set forth in this order.

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

EP. v. Tehachapi Unified School District, (E.D. Cal. 2024).

EP. v. Tehachapi Unified School District (EP. v. Tehachapi Unified School District) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

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