Fleeman v. County of Kern

District Court, E.D. California·Decided January 24, 2024·No. 1:20-cv-00321·Unknown

Opinion

4 5 6 7 10 11 JUSTIN FLEEMAN, Case No. 1:20-cv-00321-JLT-CDB 12 Plaintiff, SCHEDULING ORDER (Fed. R. Civ. P. 16)

13 v. Rule 26 Disclosures: January 23, 2024 Pleading Amendment: March 22, 2024 14 COUNTY OF KERN, et al., Discovery Deadlines: Non-Expert: December 6, 2024 15 Defendants. Expert: January 27, 2025 16 Mid-Discovery Status Conf.: October 25, 2024 17 Non-Dispositive Motion Deadlines: Filing: January 24, 2025 18 Hearing: February 28, 2025, 10:30 a.m.

19 Dispositive Motion Deadlines: Filing: April 4, 2025 20 Hearing: May 15, 2025, 8:30 a.m.

21 Pre-Trial Conference: June 9, 2025, 1:30 p.m. 2500 Tulare Street, Fresno, CA 22 Trial: August 5, 2025, 8:30 a.m. 23 2500 Tulare Street, Fresno, CA (Defendant: 7-8 days, Plaintiff: 15 days) 24 25 26 Plaintiff Justin Fleeman (“Plaintiff”) initiated this action with the filing of a complaint on 27 February 28, 2020, against Defendants County of Kern, Donny Youngblood, Richard Garrett, Dustin 28 1 Contreras, and William Davis. (Doc. 1). Plaintiff alleges he was terminated from his employment for 2 statements and/or actions made while campaigning for Sheriff against Defendant Youngblood. 3 On December 4, 2023, the Court issued an order granting and part and denying in part 4 Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Pursuant to that order, Plaintiff’s action proceeds on his claims for 5 violation of his First Amendment rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and wrongful termination under 6 Cal. Labor Code §§ 1101, 1102 and Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 3201, et seq. (Doc. 67). 7 The parties convened via Zoom videoconference for a scheduling conference before Magistrate 8 Judge Christopher D. Baker on January 23, 2024. Kevin Schwin appeared on behalf of Plaintiff and 9 Susan Coleman appeared on behalf of Defendants. 10 I. Magistrate Judge Consent 11 Currently there is no joint consent to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. 12 Notice of Congested Docket and Court Policy of Trailing 13 Due to the District Judges’ heavy caseload, the adopted policy of the Fresno Division of the 14 Eastern District is to trail all civil cases. The parties are hereby notified that for a trial date set before a 15 District Judge, the parties will trail indefinitely behind any higher priority criminal or older civil case 16 set on the same date until a courtroom becomes available. The trial date will not be reset. 17 The Magistrate Judges’ availability is far more realistic and accommodating to parties than that 18 of the District Judges who carry the heaviest caseloads in the nation and who must prioritize criminal 19 and older civil cases over more recently filed civil cases. A Magistrate Judge may conduct trials, 20 including entry of final judgment, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 73, 21 and Local Rule 305. Any appeal from a judgment entered by a Magistrate Judge is taken directly to 22 the United States Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit. 23 Therefore, the parties are directed to consider consenting to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction to 24 conduct all further proceedings, including trial, and to file a consent/decline form (provided by the 25 Court at the inception of this case) indicating whether they will consent to the jurisdiction of the 26 Magistrate Judge. 27 28 1 II. Pleading Amendment 2 Any motions to amend the pleadings, including to add parties and/or allegations and claims, 3 must be filed by March 22, 2024. Filing a motion and/or stipulation requesting leave to amend the 4 pleadings does not reflect on the propriety of the amendment or imply good cause to modify the 5 existing schedule, if necessary. All proposed amendments must (A) be supported by good cause 6 pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b) if the amendment requires any modification to the existing schedule, 7 see Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992), and (B) establish, 8 under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a), that such an amendment is not (1) prejudicial to the opposing party, (2) 9 the product of undue delay, (3) proposed in bad faith, or (4) futile, see Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 10 182 (1962). 11 III. Discovery Plan and Cut-Off Date 12 The parties shall exchange the initial disclosures required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) by no 13 later than January 23, 2024. 14 The parties are ordered to complete all discovery pertaining to non-experts on or before 15 December 6, 2024, and all discovery pertaining to experts on or before January 27, 2025. 16 The parties are directed to disclose all expert witnesses1, in writing, on or before December 18, 17 2024, and to disclose all rebuttal experts on or before January 18, 2025. The written designation of 18 retained and non-retained experts shall be made pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 26(a)(2), (A), (B), 19 and (C) and shall include all information required thereunder. Failure to designate experts in 20 compliance with this order may result in the Court excluding the testimony or other evidence offered 21 through such experts that are not disclosed pursuant to this order. 22 The provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4) and (5) shall apply to all discovery relating to 23 experts and their opinions. Experts must be fully prepared to be examined on all subjects and opinions 24 included in the designation. Failure to comply will result in the imposition of sanctions, which may 25 include striking the expert designation and preclusion of expert testimony. 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 The provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e) regarding a party’s duty to timely supplement 2 disclosures and responses to discovery requests will be strictly enforced. 3 A mid-discovery status conference is scheduled for October 25, 2024, at 9:30 a.m. before 4 Judge Baker. Counsel SHALL file a joint mid-discovery status conference report no later than one 5 week before the conference. Counsel also SHALL lodge the joint status report via e-mail to 6 CDBorders@caed.uscourts.gov. The joint status report SHALL outline the discovery counsel have 7 completed and that which needs to be completed as well as any impediments to completing the 8 discovery within the deadlines set forth in this order. Counsel SHALL discuss settlement and certify 9 in the joint status report (1) that they have met/conferred regarding settlement, and (2) proposed dates 10 for convening a settlement conference before a U.S. Magistrate Judge. 11 IV. Pre-Trial Motion Schedule / Informal Discovery Dispute Conferences 12 All non-dispositive pre-trial motions, including any discovery motions, shall be filed no later 13 than January 24, 2025,2 and heard on or before February 28, 2025. The Court hears non-dispositive 14 motions at 10:30 a.m.

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

Fleeman v. County of Kern, (E.D. Cal. 2024).

Fleeman v. County of Kern (Fleeman 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)