Estate of Michael Frank Marrufo v. City of Bakersfield

District Court, E.D. California·Decided May 31, 2024·No. 1:24-cv-00274·Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ESTATE OF MICHAEL FRANK Case No. 1:24-cv-00274-CDB MARRUFO, et al. 12 SCHEDULING ORDER (Fed. R. Civ. P. 16) Plaintiffs, 13 Discovery Deadlines: v. -Rule 26 Disclosures: June 19, 2024 14 -Amend Pleadings: August 19, 2024 CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, et al. -Expert Disclosures: June 26, 2025 15 -Rebuttal Expert Disclosures: July 11, 2025 Defendants. -Fact Discovery: June 16, 2025 16 -Expert Discovery: August 14, 2025 -Mid-Discovery Status Conference: April 16, 17 2025, at 10:00 a.m., in Bakersfield Federal Courthouse 510 19th Street, Bakersfield, CA 93301 18 Non-Dispositive Motion Deadlines: 19 -Filing: August 29, 2025 -Hearing: October 25, 2025, at 20 10:30 a.m., in Bakersfield Federal Courthouse 21 Dispositive Motion Deadlines: -Filing: November 11, 2025 22 -Hearing: December 18, 2025, at 10:30 a.m., in Bakersfield Federal Courthouse 23 Pre-Trial Conference: April 16, 2026, at 24 10:30 a.m., in Bakersfield Federal Courthouse 25 Trial: June 22, 2026, at 8:30 a.m., in Bakersfield Federal Courthouse 26 27 28 1 On March 5, 2024, Plaintiffs the Estate of Michael Frank Marrufo, Jennifer Marrufo, G.H., 2 V.H., and A.H. (“Plaintiffs”) initiated this action with the filing of a complaint against Defendants 3 City of Bakersfield, Jason Zamora Gonzalez, and Carlos Hernandez-Rodriguez. (Doc. 1). Plaintiffs 4 raise nine claims alleging civil rights and related violations against Defendants. Id. The parties 5 convened via Zoom videoconference for a scheduling conference before Magistrate Judge Christopher 6 D. Baker on May 30, 2024. Christian Conteras appeared on behalf of Plaintiffs and Heather Sharon 7 Cohen appeared on behalf of Defendants. 8 I. Pleading Amendment 9 Any motions to amend the pleadings, including to add allegations or to add or substitute 10 parties, must be filed by August 19, 2024. The parties should not construe a timely filing of a motion 11 or stipulation requesting leave to amend the pleadings to necessarily constitute good cause to modify 12 the existing schedule, if necessary. All proposed amendments, including to substitute any Doe 13 defendants, 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 II. Discovery Plan and Cut-Off Date 19 The parties shall exchange the initial disclosures required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) by no 20 later than June 19, 2024. 21 The parties are ordered to complete all discovery pertaining to non-experts on or before June 22 16, 2025, and all discovery pertaining to experts on or before August 14, 2025. 23 The parties are directed to disclose all expert witnesses, in writing, on or before June 26, 2025, 24 and to disclose all rebuttal experts on or before July 11, 2025. The written designation of retained and 25 non-retained experts shall be made pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 26(a)(2), (A), (B), and (C) and 26 shall include all information required thereunder. Failure to designate experts in compliance with this 27 order may result in the Court excluding the testimony or other evidence offered through such experts 28 that are not disclosed pursuant to this order. 1 The provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4) and (5) shall apply to all discovery relating to 2 experts and their opinions. Experts must be fully prepared to be examined on all subjects and opinions 3 included in the designation. Failure to comply may result in the imposition of sanctions, which may 4 include striking the expert designation and preclusion of expert testimony. 5 The provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e) regarding a party’s duty to timely supplement 6 disclosures and responses to discovery requests will be strictly enforced. 7 A mid-discovery status conference is scheduled for April 16, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. before 8 Magistrate Judge Christopher D. Baker. Counsel SHALL file a joint mid-discovery status conference 9 report no later than one week before the conference. Counsel also SHALL lodge the status report via 10 e-mail to CDBorders@caed.uscourts.gov. The joint status report SHALL outline the discovery 11 counsel have completed and that which needs to be completed as well as any impediments to 12 completing the discovery within the deadlines set forth in this order. Counsel SHALL discuss 13 settlement and certify in the joint status report (1) that they have met/conferred regarding settlement, 14 and (2) proposed dates for convening a settlement conference with an unassigned magistrate judge. 15 III. Pre-Trial Motion Schedule / Informal Discovery Dispute Conferences 16 All non-dispositive pre-trial motions, including any discovery motions, shall be filed by 17 August 29, 20251 and heard on or before October 25, 2025. For these hearings and at the direction of 18 the Courtroom Deputy Clerk, the Court may direct counsel to appear remotely (via Zoom). For 19 hearings noticed to occur in-person, the Court may permit counsel to appear remotely (via Zoom) 20 provided the Courtroom Deputy Clerk receives a written notice of the request to appear remotely no 21 later than five court days before the noticed hearing date. 22 No motion to amend or stipulation to amend the case schedule will be entertained unless it is 23 filed at least three days before the first deadline the parties wish to extend. 24 No written discovery motions shall be filed without the prior approval of Judge Baker. A party 25 with a discovery dispute must first confer with the opposing party in a good faith effort to resolve by 26 27 1 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 agreement the issues in dispute. If that good faith effort is unsuccessful, prior to making any filing, 2 the requesting party promptly shall seek a conference with all involved parties and Judge Baker. To 3 schedule this conference, the parties should contact the Courtroom Deputy Clerk, Susan Hall, at (661) 4 326-6620 or via email at SHall@caed.uscourts.gov. At least two days before the conference, counsel 5 shall file a joint, informal letter brief detailing each party’s position. Each party’s narrative shall not 6 exceed five pages, excluding exhibits, and shall cite relevant authority in support of the party’s 7 position. At the commencement of the conference, if the parties jointly agree to Judge Baker’s 8 consideration and resolution of the discovery disputes outside the formal Local Rule 251 procedures, 9 the Court will entertain arguments by the parties and issue a written ruling. If the parties do not jointly 10 agree to the informal discovery dispute resolution procedures set forth herein, the requesting party 11 may then seek relief through motion to compel.

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

Estate of Michael Frank Marrufo v. City of Bakersfield, (E.D. Cal. 2024).

Estate of Michael Frank Marrufo v. City of Bakersfield (Estate of Michael Frank Marrufo v. City of Bakersfield) — 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)