Estate of Derrick Austin v. Kern County Sheriffs Office

District Court, E.D. California·Decided December 5, 2024·No. 1:24-cv-00647·Unknown

Opinion

4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ESTATE OF DERRICK AUSTIN, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-00647-KES-CDB 12 Plaintiff, AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER (Fed. R. Civ. P. 16) 13 v. Rule 26 Disclosures: December 23, 2024 14 KERN COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE, et al., Pleading Amendment: April 16, 2025 Discovery Deadlines: 15 Defendants. Non-Expert: July 25, 2025 16 Expert: November 7, 2025 Mid-Disc. Conf.: June 18, 2025, 9:30 a.m. 17 Non-Dispositive Motion Deadlines: 18 Filing: November 21, 2025 Hearing: Jan. 8, 2026, 10:30 a.m. 19 Dispositive Motion Deadlines: 20 Filing: January 15, 2026 Hearing: March 9, 2026, 1:30 p.m. 21 Pre-Trial Conf.: July 13, 2026, 1:30 p.m. 22 2500 Tulare Street, Fresno, CA

23 Trial: Sept. 15, 2026, 8:30 a.m. 2500 Tulare Street, Fresno, CA 24

25 26

27 Plaintiffs are parents and successors in interest of decedent, who is alleged to have died by 28 suicide while in custody of Defendant Kern County Sheriff’s Office. Plaintiffs initiated this action 1 with the filing of their complaint on May 31, 2024. (Doc. 1). Plaintiffs bring causes of action related 2 to the incident, including failure to protect from harm and to provide medical care, deprivation of 3 familial relationship, unconstitutional policies and supervisory liability under Monell, negligence, 4 Bane Act, violation of California Government Code § 845.6, and declaratory relief under 28 U.S.C. § 5 2201. See id. The parties timely filed their joint scheduling report on November 13, 2024. (Doc. 29). 6 The parties convened via Zoom videoconference for a scheduling conference before Magistrate 7 Judge Christopher D. Baker on November 21, 2024 at 8:30 a.m. Christian Contreras and Selene 8 Estrada-Villela appeared on behalf of Plaintiffs. James D. Weakly, Martha Figueroa, and Brande L. 9 Gustafson appeared on behalf of County of Kern defendants, and J. Lynn Stokes-Pena appeared on 10 behalf of Defendant Kern County Hospital Authority. 11 I. Magistrate Judge Consent 12 Currently, there is no joint consent to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. 13 NOTICE OF CONGESTED DOCKET AND COURT POLICY OF TRAILING 14 Due to the District Judges’ heavy caseload, the adopted policy of the Fresno Division of the 15 Eastern District is to trail all civil cases. The parties are hereby notified that for a trial date set before a 16 District Judge, the parties will trail indefinitely behind any higher priority criminal or older civil case 17 set on the same date until a courtroom becomes available. The trial date will not be reset. 18 The Magistrate Judges’ availability is far more realistic and accommodating to parties than that 19 of the District Judges who carry the heaviest caseloads in the nation and who must prioritize criminal 20 and older civil cases over more recently filed civil cases. A Magistrate Judge may conduct trials, 21 including entry of final judgment, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 73, 22 and Local Rule 305. Any appeal from a judgment entered by a Magistrate Judge is taken directly to 23 the United States Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit. 24 Therefore, the parties are directed to consider consenting to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction to 25 conduct all further proceedings, including trial, and to file a consent/decline form (provided by the 26 Court at the inception of this case) indicating whether they will consent to the jurisdiction of the 27 Magistrate Judge. 28 /// 1 II. Pleading Amendment 2 Any motions to amend the pleadings, including to add or substitute parties (including Doe 3 defendants) and/or allegations and claims, must be filed by April 16, 2025. 4 Filing a motion and/or stipulation requesting leave to amend the pleadings does not reflect on 5 the propriety of the amendment or imply good cause to modify the existing schedule, if necessary. All 6 proposed amendments must (A) be supported by good cause pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b) if the 7 amendment requires any modification to the existing schedule, see Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, 8 Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992), and (B) establish, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a), that such an 9 amendment is not (1) prejudicial to the opposing party, (2) the product of undue delay, (3) proposed in 10 bad faith, or (4) futile, see Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). 11 III. Discovery Plan and Cut-Off Date 12 The parties are ordered to complete exchange of the initial disclosures required by Fed. R. Civ. 13 P. 26(a)(1) by December 23, 2024. 14 The parties are ordered to complete all discovery pertaining to non-experts on or before July 15 25, 2025, and all discovery pertaining to experts on or before November 7, 2025. At their joint 16 request, the parties shall be permitted to take a total of 15 depositions per side (Doc. 29 at 9), 5 more 17 than the allotted number as set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2)(A). Plaintiffs and 18 Defendants may take a total of 15 depositions each. 19 The parties are directed to disclose all expert witnesses1, in writing, on or before August 29, 20 2025, and to disclose all rebuttal experts on or before October 3, 2025. The written designation of 21 retained and non-retained experts shall be made pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 26(a)(2), (A), (B), 22 and (C) and shall include all information required thereunder. Failure to designate experts in 23 compliance with this order may result in the Court excluding the testimony or other evidence offered 24 through such experts that are not disclosed pursuant to this order. 25 The provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4) and (5) shall apply to all discovery relating to 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 experts and their opinions. Experts must be fully prepared to be examined on all subjects and opinions 2 included in the designation. Failure to comply will result in the imposition of sanctions, which may 3 include striking the expert designation and preclusion of expert testimony. 4 The provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e) regarding a party’s duty to timely supplement 5 disclosures and responses to discovery requests will be strictly enforced. 6 A mid-discovery status conference is scheduled for June 18, 2025 at 9:30 a.m. before Judge 7 Baker. Counsel SHALL file a joint mid-discovery status conference report no later than one week (7 8 days) before the conference. Counsel also SHALL lodge the joint status report via e-mail to 9 CDBorders@caed.uscourts.gov. The joint status report SHALL outline the discovery counsel have 10 completed and that which needs to be completed as well as any impediments to completing the 11 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

Estate of Derrick Austin v. Kern County Sheriffs Office, (E.D. Cal. 2024).

Estate of Derrick Austin v. Kern County Sheriffs Office (Estate of Derrick Austin v. Kern County Sheriffs Office) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

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