Jones v. City of Vallejo

District Court, E.D. California·Decided April 10, 2025·No. 2:24-cv-01199·Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BRYSON JONES, Case No. 2:24-cv-01199-CSK 12 Plaintiff, PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER AND ORDER DISMISSING DOE DEFENDANTS 13 v. 14 CITY OF VALLEJO, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 READ THIS ORDER CAREFULLY. IT CONTAINS IMPORTANT DATES THAT 18 THE COURT WILL STRICTLY ENFORCE AND WITH WHICH ALL COUNSEL AND 19 PARTIES, INCLUDING THOSE PROCEEDING WITHOUT COUNSEL, MUST COMPLY. 20 FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE TERMS OF THIS ORDER MAY RESULT IN THE 21 IMPOSITION OF MONETARY AND ALL OTHER APPROPRIATE SANCTIONS. 22 On April 8, 2025, the Court conducted a status (initial pretrial scheduling) 23 conference in this matter.1 At the scheduling conference, attorney James Cook 24 appeared on behalf of Plaintiff, and attorney Katelyn M. Knight appeared on behalf of 25 Defendants. After considering the parties’ joint status reports (ECF Nos. 19, 22), and the 26 scheduling conference held, the Court issues the following pretrial scheduling order. 27 1 This matter proceeds before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) on the 28 consent of all parties. (ECF Nos. 6, 8, 9.) 1 I. NATURE OF THE CASE 2 From the parties’ 02/19/2025 Joint Status Report (ECF 19 at 1): 3 This case arises from a non-fatal officer-involved shooting incident on August 19, 4 2019. Plaintiff alleges that Officer Komoda utilized excessive force and asserts the 5 following causes of action: Fourth Amendment Excessive Force (42 U.S.C. § 1983), 6 Monell (42 U.S.C. § 1983), Bane Act (Cal. Civil Code § 52.1), Assault and Battery, 7 Negligence, and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress. Defendants dispute Plaintiff’s 8 allegations and dispute liability on all theories. 9 II. SERVICE OF PROCESS, JOINDER OF PARTIES, PLEADINGS AMENDMENT 10 All named Defendants have been served and have answered the First Amended 11 Complaint. (ECF Nos.19 at 2; 22 at 1.) No further service, joinder of parties, or 12 amendments to pleadings is permitted except with leave of Court, and only after good 13 cause is shown. 14 The Court notes 50 Doe Defendants are named in the First Amended Complaint. 15 (See ECF No. 7 ¶ 7.) The inclusion of such “Doe” defendants is generally disfavored in 16 the Ninth Circuit. Soo Park v. Thompson, 851 F.3d 910, 928 n.21 (9th Cir. 2017) (citing 17 Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 642 (9th Cir. 1980)). In addition, the parties’ 18 03/26/2025 Joint Status Report indicates that “[a]ll named defendants have been served 19 and no joinder of additional parties is anticipated at this time. Plaintiff anticipates 20 amending the [First Amended] Complaint to substitute any additional defendants 21 currently identified as Doe defendants and dismissing the remaining Doe defendants no 22 later than June 30, 2025.” (ECF No. 22 at 1.) The Doe Defendants are hereby 23 DISMISSED from this case, and should Plaintiff wish to amend to add additional named 24 defendants after discovering their identities, Plaintiff may file a motion to amend and 25 submit this motion for the Court’s review. No further service, joinder of parties, or 26 amendments to pleadings is permitted except with leave of Court, and only after good 27 cause is shown. 28 / / / 1 III. JURISDICTION/VENUE 2 The parties assert that the Court has federal question jurisdiction (ECF No. 19 at 3 2), which is found to be proper. Venue is proper and undisputed. (Id.) 4 IV. DISCOVERY DEADLINES AND PROCEDURES FOR DISCOVERY DISPUTES 5 A. Initial Disclosures 6 The parties agreed to exchange Rule 26 Initial Disclosures on or before March 4, 7 2025 by agreement. (ECF No. 19 at 2.) At the scheduling conference, the parties 8 confirmed initial disclosures were exchanged. 9 B. Joint Mid-Discovery and Mediation Status Statement 10 By September 8, 2025 all parties shall file with the Court a Joint Mid-Discovery 11 and Mediation Status Statement summarizing the current status of discovery and 12 mediation efforts. This statement shall include discovery completed to date and 13 identification of issues, if any, preventing discovery from proceeding in a timely manner. 14 The filing of this statement shall not relieve the parties or counsel of their obligations to 15 meet and confer, comply with the deadlines set by the Court, and comply with the 16 discovery procedures set by the Court. 17 C. Non-Expert Discovery 18 All non-expert discovery shall be completed by February 20, 2026. “Completed” 19 means (1) all non-expert discovery shall have been conducted, including written 20 discovery and depositions taken, and (2) any disputes related to discovery shall have 21 been resolved by appropriate order if necessary and, where discovery has been 22 ordered, the order has been complied with. Any discovery-related motions must conform 23 to the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this Court’s Local Rules,2 24 including Local Rule 251, and Judge Kim’s Civil Standing Orders.3 Judge Kim hears civil

25 2 The Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California 26 are available on the district court’s website: https://www.caed.uscourts.gov/caednew/index.cfm/rules/local-rules/. 27 3 Judge Kim’s Civil Standing Orders are available on Judge Kim’s webpage on the 28 district court’s website: https://www.caed.uscourts.gov/caednew/index.cfm/judges/all- 1 motions on Tuesdays at 10:00 a.m. 2 D. Expert Discovery 3 The parties shall disclose any expert witnesses in accordance with Federal Rule 4 of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) no later than March 27, 2026. Any rebuttal expert disclosures 5 shall be made in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) no later than April 24, 2026. 6 Expert disclosures shall be served upon all parties. All expert discovery shall be 7 completed by June 12, 2026. “Completed” means (1) all expert discovery shall have 8 been conducted, including depositions taken, and (2) any disputes related to expert 9 discovery shall have been resolved by appropriate court order if necessary and, where 10 discovery has been ordered, the order has been complied with. The same procedures 11 for discovery disputes applies to non-expert and expert discovery. 12 An expert witness not timely disclosed will not be permitted to testify unless the 13 party offering the expert witness demonstrates that the failure was substantially justified 14 or is harmless. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c). Upon discovery of any such expert witness, 15 the party offering the late disclosed expert witness must promptly notify all parties in 16 writing, promptly make the expert witness available for deposition, and promptly notify 17 the Court in a written filling. This filing must include the case deadlines for expert 18 disclosures, expert discovery cut-off, dispositive motions, final pretrial conference, and 19 trial. Failure to timely provide the information required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) may 20 lead to preclusion of the expert’s testimony or other appropriate sanctions. See Fed. R. 21 Civ. P. 37(c). 22 E.

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

Jones v. City of Vallejo, (E.D. Cal. 2025).

Jones v. City of Vallejo (Jones v. City of Vallejo) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Kelly Park v. Karen Thompson
851 F.3d 910 (Ninth Circuit, 2017)
Gillespie v. Civiletti
629 F.2d 637 (Ninth Circuit, 1980)