(PC) Villalobos v. Tiggs-Brown, P.A

District Court, E.D. California·Decided December 5, 2019·No. 1:19-cv-00442·Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 RAMON DANIEL VILLALOBOS, Case No. 1:19-cv-00442-DAD-EPG (PC) 9 Plaintiff, SCHEDULING CONFERENCE ORDER

10 Amended Complaint Filing Deadline: December 18, 2019 11 Motion to Compel 12 Deadline: May 11, 2020

13 Status Conference: Date: June 8, 2020 Time: 1:30 p.m. 14 Courtroom 10 (EPG) Nonexpert 15 v. Discovery Cutoff: July 2, 2020 16 Dispositive Motion Filing Deadline: September 4, 2020 17 Expert Disclosure 18 Deadline: May 7, 2021

19 Rebuttal Expert Disclosure: June 11, 2021 20 Expert 21 Discovery Cutoff: July 9, 2021

22 Settlement Conf.: Not Set

23 ARMENTA TIGGS-BROWN, P.A., Telephonic Trial 24 Defendant. Confirmation Hrg: Date: July 26, 2021 Time: 1:30 p.m. 25 Courtroom 5 (DAD) 26 Jury Trial: Date: September 28, 2021 Time: 8:30 a.m. 27 Courtroom 5 (DAD) 28 1 This Court conducted a scheduling conference on December 4, 2019. Counsel Benjamin 2 Rudin telephonically appeared on behalf of Plaintiff. Counsel Vickie Whitney telephonically 3 appeared on behalf of Defendant. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b), this Court sets a schedule for 4 this action. 5 I. Amended Complaint Filing Deadline 6 Plaintiff is granted leave to file the revised amended complaint set forth at ECF No. 32-2. 7 Plaintiff shall filed the amended complaint no later than December 18, 2019. Defendant’s 8 previously filed answer (ECF No. 20) shall serve as the answer to the amended complaint. 9 II. General Discovery Procedures 10 The parties are now granted leave to serve discovery in addition to that provided as part of 11 initial disclosures. No later than forty-five (45) days from the date of this order, Plaintiff shall 12 provide Defendant copies of the documents listed in Plaintiff’s initial disclosures to the extent 13 such documents are in the possession, custody, or control of Plaintiff and copies can be provided 14 in full or redacted form. 15 Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 1, 16, and 26-36, discovery shall proceed as 16 follows: 17 1. Discovery requests shall be served by the parties pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 18 Procedure 5 and Local Rule 135. Discovery requests and responses shall not be filed with the 19 Court unless required by Local Rules 250.2, 250.3, or 250.4 (providing that discovery requests 20 shall not be filed unless or until there is a proceeding in which the document or proof of service 21 is at issue). A party may serve on any other party no more than 15 interrogatories, 15 requests 22 for production of documents, and 15 requests for admission. On motion, these limits may be 23 increased for good cause. 24 2. Responses to written discovery requests shall be due forty-five (45) days after the 25 request is first served. Boilerplate objections are disfavored and may be summarily overruled by 26 the Court. Responses to document requests shall include all documents within a party’s 27 possession, custody or control. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(1). Documents are deemed within a party’s 28 possession, custody, or control if the party has actual possession, custody, or control thereof, or 1 the legal right to obtain the property on demand. 2 3. If any party or third party withholds a document on the basis of privilege, that party or 3 third party shall provide a privilege log to the requesting party identifying the date, author, 4 recipients, general subject matter, and basis of the privilege within thirty (30) days after the date 5 that responses are due. The privilege log shall simultaneously be filed with the Court. Failure 6 to provide and file a privilege log within this time shall result in a waiver of the privilege. 7 Additionally, if a party is claiming a right to withhold witness statements and/or evidence 8 gathered from investigation(s) into the incident(s) at issue in the complaint based on the 9 official information privilege, the withholding party shall submit the withheld witness 10 statements and/or evidence to the Court for in camera review, along with an explanation of 11 why the witness statements and/or evidence is privileged.1 The witness statements and/or 12 evidence shall be Bates stamped, and mailed to Judge Grosjean at 2500 Tulare Street, Sixth 13 Floor, Fresno, CA 93721. The withholding party shall also file and serve a notice that they have 14 complied with this order. All other claims of privilege, including claims of the official 15 information privilege over information other than witness statements and/or evidence gathered 16 from investigation(s) into the incident(s) at issue in the complaint, may be challenged via a 17 motion to compel. 18 /// 19 /// 20 1 See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 94-95 (2006) (“[P]roper exhaustion improves the quality of those 21 prisoner suits that are eventually filed because proper exhaustion often results in the creation of an administrative record that is helpful to the court. When a grievance is filed shortly after the event giving rise to the grievance, 22 witnesses can be identified and questioned while memories are still fresh, and evidence can be gathered and preserved.”). 23 The “common law governmental privilege (encompassing and referred to sometimes as the official or state secret privilege) . . . is only a qualified privilege, contingent upon the competing interests of the requesting litigant 24 and subject to disclosure . . . .” Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for N. Dist. of Cal., 511 F.2d 192, 198 (9th Cir. 1975) (internal citations omitted). The Ninth Circuit has since followed Kerr in requiring in camera review and a balancing of 25 interests in ruling on the government’s claim of the official information privilege. See, e.g., Breed v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for N. Dist. of Cal., 542 F.2d 1114, 1116 (9th Cir. 1976) (“[A]s required by Kerr, we recognize ‘that in camera review is a highly appropriate and useful means of dealing with claims of governmental privilege.’”) (quoting Kerr v. U. S. 26 Dist. Ct. for N. Dist. of Cal., 426 U.S. 394, 406 (1976)); Sanchez v. City of Santa Ana, 936 F.2d 1027, 1033-34 (9th Cir. 1990), as amended on denial of reh'g (Feb. 27, 1991), as amended on denial of reh'g (May 24, 1991) 27 (“Government personnel files are considered official information. To determine whether the information sought is privileged, courts must weigh the potential benefits of disclosure against the potential disadvantages. If the latter is 28 greater, the privilege bars discovery.”) (internal citations omitted). 1 III. Discovery Cutoffs and Limits 2 A. Non-Expert Discovery 3 All non-expert discovery shall be completed no later than July 2, 2020. The parties are 4 advised that motions to compel must be filed no later than May 11, 2020, and any opposition to a 5 motion to compel shall be filed no later than May 26, 2020, so that the Court may grant effective 6 relief within the allotted discovery time. 7 A telephonic status conference has been set for June 8, 2020, at 1:30 p.m., before 8 Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean.

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

(PC) Villalobos v. Tiggs-Brown, P.A, (E.D. Cal. 2019).

(PC) Villalobos v. Tiggs-Brown, P.A ((PC) Villalobos v. Tiggs-Brown, P.A) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related