Garcia v. County of Sacramento

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. California
DecidedOctober 24, 2023
Docket2:23-cv-00899
StatusUnknown

This text of Garcia v. County of Sacramento (Garcia v. County of Sacramento) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Garcia v. County of Sacramento, (E.D. Cal. 2023).

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SALVADOR GARCIA, JR., No. 2:23-cv-00899-DAD-KJN 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. SCHEDULING ORDER 14 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, ET AL. 15 Defendants. 16 17 Pursuant to Rule 16(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court reviewed the 18 parties’ joint status report (Doc. No. 12) and determined that the court need not “consult[] with 19 the parties’ attorneys and any unrepresented parties at a scheduling conference,” before issuing a 20 scheduling order in this case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(1)(B). The court vacated the initial 21 scheduling conference set for September 26, 2023, and hereby issues this scheduling order. 22 I. SERVICE OF PROCESS 23 The named defendants have been served as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5. 24 No further service is permitted without leave of court, good cause having been shown under 25 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b). 26 II. JOINDER OF ADDITIONAL PARTIES / AMENDMENT OF PLEADINGS 27 Plaintiff anticipates the joinder of additional parties to this action, including individual law 28 enforcement officers and supervisors currently identified as “Doe” Defendants in the Complaint. 1 Plaintiffs cannot identify these individuals until after they have access to discovery. See, e.g., 2 Estate of Osuna v. County of Stanislaus, 392 F. Supp. 3d 1162, 1169–70 (E.D. Cal. 2019) (citing 3 Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 642 (9th Cir. 1980)). Any “Doe” defendants shall be added 4 within 60 days after defendants provides Rule 26 disclosures that provide the names of the 5 involved deputies. 6 No further joinder of parties or amendments to pleadings is permitted without leave of 7 court, good cause having been shown. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b); Johnson v. Mammoth 8 Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 27 604 (9th Cir. 1992). The parties are advised that the filing of 9 motions and/or stipulations requesting leave to amend the pleadings does not imply good cause to 10 modify the existing schedule. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 (b)(4); see also Johnson, 975 F. 2d at 609. 11 Moreover, any amendment requested under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) must not be: 12 (1) prejudicial to the opposing party; (2) the product of undue delay; (3) proposed in bad faith; or 13 (4) futile. See Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). 14 III. DISCOVERY PROCEDURES 15 Discovery matters that do not implicate the schedule of the case or that do not relate to 16 sealing or redaction of documents related to dispositive motions are referred to the assigned 17 United States Magistrate Judge, who will hear all discovery disputes subject to his or her 18 procedures. (The assigned magistrate judge’s initials follow the district judge’s initials next to the 19 case number.) All discovery documents must include the words “DISCOVERY MATTER” in 20 the caption to ensure proper routing. Do not direct delivery of courtesy copies of these 21 documents to the district judge. Counsel are directed to contact the magistrate judge’s courtroom 22 deputy clerk to schedule discovery matters for hearing. 23 All motions to compel discovery must be noticed on the assigned magistrate judge’s 24 calendar in accordance with the local rules of this court and the magistrate judge’s own 25 procedures. The written ruling of the assigned magistrate judge shall be final, subject to 26 modification by the district court only where it has been shown that the magistrate judge’s order 27 is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). Pursuant to Local Rule 28 303, any party may file and serve a “Request for Reconsideration by the District Court of 1 Magistrate Judge’s Ruling.” See L.R. 303(c). The requesting party must file and serve any such 2 request within fourteen (14) days of service of a written ruling. L.R. 303(b). The request must 3 specify which portions of the ruling are clearly erroneous or contrary to law and the basis for that 4 contention with supporting points and authorities. L.R. 303(c). 5 In addition, the assigned magistrate judge reviews proposed discovery phase protective 6 orders sought by the parties pursuant to Local Rule 141.1. However, requests to seal or redact in 7 connection with dispositive motions or trial are decided by Judge Drozd and any such requests 8 must comply with Judge Drozd’s Standing Order and Local Rules 140 and 141. 9 IV. DISCOVERY DEADLINES 10 A. Rule 26(a) Initial Disclosures 11 The parties indicated that initial disclosures pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 Rule 26(a)(1) would be made by September 14, 2023. (Doc. No. 12 at 4.) Any parties served or 13 joined after the issuance of this scheduling order shall “make the initial disclosures within 30 days 14 after being served or joined,” as provided by Rule 26(a)(1)(D). 15 B. Fact Discovery 16 All fact discovery shall be completed1 no later than September 11, 2024. 17 C. Expert Discovery 18 Disclosures of expert witnesses, if any, must be made pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 19 Procedure 26(a)(2)(A), (B) and (C), and shall include all information required thereunder. Each 20 expert witness must be fully prepared to be examined on all subjects and opinions included in the 21 disclosures. Failure to comply with these requirements may result in the imposition of 22 appropriate sanctions, including the preclusion of the expert’s testimony, or of other evidence 23 offered through the expert. 24 1 As used herein, the word “completed” means that all discovery shall have been conducted so 25 that all depositions have been taken and any disputes relevant to discovery shall have been resolved by appropriate order if necessary and, where discovery has been ordered, the order has 26 been obeyed. The parties are advised that motions to compel must be filed in advance of the 27 discovery completion deadlines so that the court may grant effective relief within the allotted discovery time. A party’s failure to have a discovery dispute heard sufficiently in advance of the 28 discovery cutoff may result in denial of the motion as untimely. 1 The parties shall disclose initial experts and produce reports in accordance with Federal 2 Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) by no later than November 12, 2024. With regard to expert 3 testimony intended solely for rebuttal, those experts shall be disclosed and reports produced in 4 accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) on or before December 12, 2024. 5 All expert discovery shall be completed no later than January 12, 2025. 6 V.

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

Related

Foman v. Davis
371 U.S. 178 (Supreme Court, 1962)
Estate of Osuna v. Cnty. of Stanislaus
392 F. Supp. 3d 1162 (E.D. California, 2019)
Gillespie v. Civiletti
629 F.2d 637 (Ninth Circuit, 1980)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Garcia v. County of Sacramento, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/garcia-v-county-of-sacramento-caed-2023.