McFadden v. City of Bakersfield

District Court, E.D. California·Decided December 19, 2023·No. 1:23-cv-01421·Unknown

Opinion

4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JEFFERY AARON MCFADDEN, Case No. 1:23-cv-01421-JLT-CDB 12 Plaintiff, SCHEDULING ORDER (Fed. R. Civ. P. 16)

13 v. Rule 26 Disclosures: January 8, 2024 Pleading Amendment: March 8, 2024 14 CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, et al. Discovery Deadlines: Non-Expert: July 20, 2024 15 Defendants. Expert: October 16, 2024 16 Mid-Discovery Status Conf.: June 4, 2024 17 Non-Dispositive Motion Deadlines: Filing: November 5, 2024 18 Hearing: December 16, 2024, 10:30 a.m.

19 Dispositive Motion Deadlines: Filing: January 20, 2025 20 Hearing: February 25, 2025, 8:30 a.m.

21 Pre-Trial Conference: July 21, 2025, 1:30 p.m. 2500 Tulare Street, Fresno, CA 22 Trial: September 23, 2025, 8:30 a.m. 23 2500 Tulare Street, Fresno, CA 7-10 days 24 25 26 Plaintiff Jeffery Aaron McFadden (“Plaintiff”) initiated this action with the filing of a 27 complaint on September 29, 2023, against Defendants City of Bakersfield, T. Schleicher, Sims, 28 Blankenship, Andrew Celedon, Doyle, Kniffen, and Skidmore (“Defendants”). (Doc. 1). Plaintiff 1 raises the following claims against Defendants: unreasonable seizure, excessive force, failure to 2 intercede and Monell violations pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Id. The parties convened via Zoom 3 videoconference for a scheduling conference before Magistrate Judge Christopher D. Baker on 4 December 19, 2023. Eric Morris appeared on behalf of Plaintiff and Heather S. Cohen appeared on 5 behalf of Defendant. 6 I. Magistrate Judge Consent 7 Currently there is no joint consent to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. 8 Notice of Congested Docket and Court Policy of Trailing 9 Due to the District Judges’ heavy caseload, the adopted policy of the Fresno Division of the 10 Eastern District is to trail all civil cases. The parties are hereby notified that for a trial date set before a 11 District Judge, the parties will trail indefinitely behind any higher priority criminal or older civil case 12 set on the same date until a courtroom becomes available. The trial date will not be reset. 13 The Magistrate Judges’ availability is far more realistic and accommodating to parties than that 14 of the District Judges who carry the heaviest caseloads in the nation and who must prioritize criminal 15 and older civil cases over more recently filed civil cases. A Magistrate Judge may conduct trials, 16 including entry of final judgment, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 73, 17 and Local Rule 305. Any appeal from a judgment entered by a Magistrate Judge is taken directly to 18 the United States Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit. 19 Therefore, the parties are directed to consider consenting to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction to 20 conduct all further proceedings, including trial, and to file a consent/decline form (provided by the 21 Court at the inception of this case) indicating whether they will consent to the jurisdiction of the 22 Magistrate Judge. 23 II. Pleading Amendment 24 Any motions to amend the pleadings, including to add parties and/or allegations and claims, 25 must be filed by March 8, 2024. Filing a motion and/or stipulation requesting leave to amend the 26 pleadings does not reflect on the propriety of the amendment or imply good cause to modify the 27 existing schedule, if necessary. All proposed amendments must (A) be supported by good cause 28 pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b) if the amendment requires any modification to the existing schedule, 1 see Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992), and (B) establish, 2 under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a), that such an amendment is not (1) prejudicial to the opposing party, (2) 3 the product of undue delay, (3) proposed in bad faith, or (4) futile, see Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 4 182 (1962). 5 III. Discovery Plan and Cut-Off Date 6 The parties shall exchange the initial disclosures required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) by no 7 later than January 8, 2024. 8 The parties are ordered to complete all discovery pertaining to non-experts on or before July 9 20, 2024, and all discovery pertaining to experts on or before October 16, 2024. 10 The parties are directed to disclose all expert witnesses1, in writing, on or before August 22, 11 2024, and to disclose all rebuttal experts on or before September 23, 2024. The written designation of 12 retained and non-retained experts shall be made pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 26(a)(2), (A), (B), 13 and (C) and shall include all information required thereunder. Failure to designate experts in 14 compliance with this order may result in the Court excluding the testimony or other evidence offered 15 through such experts that are not disclosed pursuant to this order. 16 The provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4) and (5) shall apply to all discovery relating to 17 experts and their opinions. Experts must be fully prepared to be examined on all subjects and opinions 18 included in the designation. Failure to comply will result in the imposition of sanctions, which may 19 include striking the expert designation and preclusion of expert testimony. 20 The provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e) regarding a party’s duty to timely supplement 21 disclosures and responses to discovery requests will be strictly enforced. 22 A mid-discovery status conference is scheduled for June 4, 2024, at 9:30 a.m. before Judge 23 Baker. Counsel SHALL file a joint mid-discovery status conference report no later than one week 24 before the conference. Counsel also SHALL lodge the joint status report via e-mail to 25 CDBorders@caed.uscourts.gov. The joint status report SHALL outline the discovery counsel have 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 completed and that which needs to be completed as well as any impediments to completing the 2 discovery within the deadlines set forth in this order. Counsel SHALL discuss settlement and certify 3 in the joint status report (1) that they have met/conferred regarding settlement, and (2) proposed dates 4 for convening a settlement conference before a U.S. Magistrate Judge. 5 IV. Pre-Trial Motion Schedule / Informal Discovery Dispute Conferences 6 All non-dispositive pre-trial motions, including any discovery motions, shall be filed no later 7 than November 5, 2024,2 and heard on or before December 16, 2024. The Court hears non- 8 dispositive motions at 10:30 a.m. at the United States District Courthouse in Bakersfield, California 9 before Judge Baker. 10 No motion to amend or stipulation to amend the case schedule will be entertained unless it is 11 filed at least one week before the first deadline the parties wish to extend.

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

McFadden v. City of Bakersfield, (E.D. Cal. 2023).

McFadden v. City of Bakersfield (McFadden 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)