1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 DAUDA ILIYA, No. 2:22-cv-1305-KJM-KJN PS 12 Plaintiff, PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER 13 v. 14 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, 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 MUST COMPLY. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE TERMS OF THIS ORDER 20 MAY RESULT IN THE IMPOSITION OF MONETARY AND ALL OTHER APPROPRIATE 22 On January 31, 2023, the court conducted a pretrial scheduling conference in this matter.1 23 Plaintiff appeared on his own behalf; attorney Nicole Cahill appeared on behalf of defendants. 24 After considering the parties’ joint status report (ECF No. 15) and the parties’ representations at 25 the scheduling conference, the court issues the following pretrial scheduling order.2 26 1 This case was referred to the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21). 27 2 The court has made some modifications to the parties’ proposed scheduling deadlines based on 28 the court’s own availability and case management needs. 1 NATURE OF THE CASE3 2 Plaintiff’s Statement of the Case 3 In June 2020, plaintiff purchased a 2005 Toyota Scion from an individual who identified 4 himself with an identification card as James Lahey and handed over the key, car, and entitling 5 documentation to finalize the transaction. 6 On June 8, 2020, plaintiff was arrested at gun point and then jailed for taking a vehicle 7 without consent and receiving stolen property. During the arrest, plaintiff states he informed the 8 arresting officer, Deputy Sheriff M. McCune, from whom the Scion was purchased, but also 9 described to him and clearly stated into the officer’s body camera that plaintiff possessed the 10 signed title of the Scion. 11 After the arrest, plaintiff's Scion and property within it were handed to an unknown 12 [Sheriff’s Office employee]. Plaintiff's multiple keys and necklace (recorded on Deputy Sheriff 13 M. McCune's body camera) allegedly were not booked into plaintiff's property at the jail, came up 14 missing, and were never returned to plaintiff. The amount of currency booked and returned to 15 plaintiff is alleged to have been less than that the Sheriff's Office employee had taken. After 16 release from jail, plaintiff alleges he showed up to the arraignment but he was not allowed into 17 the courthouse. Plaintiff alleges that during his time in jail and afterward, he suffered from a 18 range of emotional distress, including Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. 19 On October 15, 2020, plaintiff was arrested again for the same charges. Subsequently, 20 plaintiff secured bail and was released after signing a declaration to attend all required judicial 21 proceedings. Plaintiff appeared and alleges all charges were dismissed by the state court judge. 22 Plaintiff alleges the prosecution failed to produce documentation or proof. 23 Plaintiff alleges that ever since his initial arrest on June 8, 2020, he has been subjected to 24 intense stalking, harassment, additional due process, and civil rights violations that have extended 25 through multiple counties. 26 /// 27 3 The court has modified the statement of the case slightly, omitting legal arguments and 28 clarifying parts of the parties’ assertions. 1 Plaintiff states in his portion of the joint statement that the action is brought for 2 defendants’ violations of the Fourth Amendment, conspiring to interfere with civil rights, 3 wrongful and malicious prosecution, false imprisonment and arrest, unlawful detention, violation 4 of procedural due process rights, unlawful taking of property, unreasonable search and seizure, 5 and supervisory liability under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985. Plaintiff also states in his portion of 6 the joint statement that he alleges false imprisonment, negligence, emotional distress, and 7 conversion under California State Law. Plaintiff states he intends to bring each of his civil rights 8 claims pursuant to official policies and customs, as he alleges defendants failed to adhere to 9 certain policies prior to, during, and after his arrest/prosecution. Plaintiff states that he cites 42 10 U.S.C. § 1985 for conspiracy to interfere with civil rights in his joint statement as relating to 11 alleged violations of civil rights by other agencies, individuals, and corporations. Plaintiff states 12 that he asserts Monell liability and respondeat superior liability under California law (false 13 imprisonment).4 14 Defendants’ Statement of the Case 15 Defendants deny the claims and allegations made by plaintiff. Defendants assert probable 16 cause existed to arrest plaintiff on June 8, 2020. Defendants argue plaintiff’s complaint does not 17 assert claims based on a subsequent arrest, nor does plaintiff’s complaint assert a Monell claim 18 against defendant County.5 19 JURISDICTION/VENUE 20 Jurisdiction and venue are undisputed, and are hereby found to be proper. 21 /// 22
23 4 The court notes that the First Amended Complaint names the County of Sacramento; Anne Marie Schubert (official capacity only); Scott R. Jones (official capacity only); and Matthew 24 McCune (in his individual and official capacity), plus 50 doe defendants. The court also notes the claims in the First Amended Complaint are stated as: (I) 42 U.S.C. 25 § 1983 for False Arrest/Wrongful Imprisonment under the Fourth Amendment against all “Public Entity Defendants”; (II) 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for Malicious Prosecution against “All Defendants”; 26 (III) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress against “All Defendants”; and (IV) Supervisory 27 Liability against “All Defendants.”
28 5 The court notes that no pre-answer motion was filed by defendants. 1 SERVICE OF PROCESS/ JOINDER OF PARTIES/AMENDMENT OF PLEADINGS 2 All named defendants have been served. Defendants filed an answer to the complaint 3 (ECF No. 6). Plaintiff filed an amended complaint within 21 days. (ECF No. 11.) Defendants 4 filed an answer to the amended complaint. (ECF No. 14.) No further service, joinder of parties, 5 or amendments to the pleadings is permitted except with leave of court, good cause having been 6 shown.6 8 To the extent that the parties have not already done so, they shall exchange initial 9 disclosures no later than sixty days from the date of this order. Such disclosures shall include 10 production of any documents and other items required by Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(ii) that are within a 11 party’s possession, custody, or control. 12 DISCOVERY DEADLINES, PROCEDURES FOR DISCOVERY DISPUTES 13 All non-expert discovery shall be completed7 by September 13, 2023. Any discovery- 14 related motions must conform to the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 15 this court’s Local Rules, including Local Rule 251. Judge Newman generally hears civil motions 16 on Tuesdays at 9:00 a.m. 17 Prior to filing any discovery-related motions, the parties are required to meet and confer in 18 good faith in an attempt to resolve their discovery disputes informally and without court 19 intervention. Such meet and confer shall take place in person, or at a minimum, via a telephonic 20 conference. The mere exchange of letters or e-mails alone is not sufficient.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 DAUDA ILIYA, No. 2:22-cv-1305-KJM-KJN PS 12 Plaintiff, PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER 13 v. 14 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, 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 MUST COMPLY. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE TERMS OF THIS ORDER 20 MAY RESULT IN THE IMPOSITION OF MONETARY AND ALL OTHER APPROPRIATE 22 On January 31, 2023, the court conducted a pretrial scheduling conference in this matter.1 23 Plaintiff appeared on his own behalf; attorney Nicole Cahill appeared on behalf of defendants. 24 After considering the parties’ joint status report (ECF No. 15) and the parties’ representations at 25 the scheduling conference, the court issues the following pretrial scheduling order.2 26 1 This case was referred to the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21). 27 2 The court has made some modifications to the parties’ proposed scheduling deadlines based on 28 the court’s own availability and case management needs. 1 NATURE OF THE CASE3 2 Plaintiff’s Statement of the Case 3 In June 2020, plaintiff purchased a 2005 Toyota Scion from an individual who identified 4 himself with an identification card as James Lahey and handed over the key, car, and entitling 5 documentation to finalize the transaction. 6 On June 8, 2020, plaintiff was arrested at gun point and then jailed for taking a vehicle 7 without consent and receiving stolen property. During the arrest, plaintiff states he informed the 8 arresting officer, Deputy Sheriff M. McCune, from whom the Scion was purchased, but also 9 described to him and clearly stated into the officer’s body camera that plaintiff possessed the 10 signed title of the Scion. 11 After the arrest, plaintiff's Scion and property within it were handed to an unknown 12 [Sheriff’s Office employee]. Plaintiff's multiple keys and necklace (recorded on Deputy Sheriff 13 M. McCune's body camera) allegedly were not booked into plaintiff's property at the jail, came up 14 missing, and were never returned to plaintiff. The amount of currency booked and returned to 15 plaintiff is alleged to have been less than that the Sheriff's Office employee had taken. After 16 release from jail, plaintiff alleges he showed up to the arraignment but he was not allowed into 17 the courthouse. Plaintiff alleges that during his time in jail and afterward, he suffered from a 18 range of emotional distress, including Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. 19 On October 15, 2020, plaintiff was arrested again for the same charges. Subsequently, 20 plaintiff secured bail and was released after signing a declaration to attend all required judicial 21 proceedings. Plaintiff appeared and alleges all charges were dismissed by the state court judge. 22 Plaintiff alleges the prosecution failed to produce documentation or proof. 23 Plaintiff alleges that ever since his initial arrest on June 8, 2020, he has been subjected to 24 intense stalking, harassment, additional due process, and civil rights violations that have extended 25 through multiple counties. 26 /// 27 3 The court has modified the statement of the case slightly, omitting legal arguments and 28 clarifying parts of the parties’ assertions. 1 Plaintiff states in his portion of the joint statement that the action is brought for 2 defendants’ violations of the Fourth Amendment, conspiring to interfere with civil rights, 3 wrongful and malicious prosecution, false imprisonment and arrest, unlawful detention, violation 4 of procedural due process rights, unlawful taking of property, unreasonable search and seizure, 5 and supervisory liability under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985. Plaintiff also states in his portion of 6 the joint statement that he alleges false imprisonment, negligence, emotional distress, and 7 conversion under California State Law. Plaintiff states he intends to bring each of his civil rights 8 claims pursuant to official policies and customs, as he alleges defendants failed to adhere to 9 certain policies prior to, during, and after his arrest/prosecution. Plaintiff states that he cites 42 10 U.S.C. § 1985 for conspiracy to interfere with civil rights in his joint statement as relating to 11 alleged violations of civil rights by other agencies, individuals, and corporations. Plaintiff states 12 that he asserts Monell liability and respondeat superior liability under California law (false 13 imprisonment).4 14 Defendants’ Statement of the Case 15 Defendants deny the claims and allegations made by plaintiff. Defendants assert probable 16 cause existed to arrest plaintiff on June 8, 2020. Defendants argue plaintiff’s complaint does not 17 assert claims based on a subsequent arrest, nor does plaintiff’s complaint assert a Monell claim 18 against defendant County.5 19 JURISDICTION/VENUE 20 Jurisdiction and venue are undisputed, and are hereby found to be proper. 21 /// 22
23 4 The court notes that the First Amended Complaint names the County of Sacramento; Anne Marie Schubert (official capacity only); Scott R. Jones (official capacity only); and Matthew 24 McCune (in his individual and official capacity), plus 50 doe defendants. The court also notes the claims in the First Amended Complaint are stated as: (I) 42 U.S.C. 25 § 1983 for False Arrest/Wrongful Imprisonment under the Fourth Amendment against all “Public Entity Defendants”; (II) 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for Malicious Prosecution against “All Defendants”; 26 (III) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress against “All Defendants”; and (IV) Supervisory 27 Liability against “All Defendants.”
28 5 The court notes that no pre-answer motion was filed by defendants. 1 SERVICE OF PROCESS/ JOINDER OF PARTIES/AMENDMENT OF PLEADINGS 2 All named defendants have been served. Defendants filed an answer to the complaint 3 (ECF No. 6). Plaintiff filed an amended complaint within 21 days. (ECF No. 11.) Defendants 4 filed an answer to the amended complaint. (ECF No. 14.) No further service, joinder of parties, 5 or amendments to the pleadings is permitted except with leave of court, good cause having been 6 shown.6 8 To the extent that the parties have not already done so, they shall exchange initial 9 disclosures no later than sixty days from the date of this order. Such disclosures shall include 10 production of any documents and other items required by Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(ii) that are within a 11 party’s possession, custody, or control. 12 DISCOVERY DEADLINES, PROCEDURES FOR DISCOVERY DISPUTES 13 All non-expert discovery shall be completed7 by September 13, 2023. Any discovery- 14 related motions must conform to the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 15 this court’s Local Rules, including Local Rule 251. Judge Newman generally hears civil motions 16 on Tuesdays at 9:00 a.m. 17 Prior to filing any discovery-related motions, the parties are required to meet and confer in 18 good faith in an attempt to resolve their discovery disputes informally and without court 19 intervention. Such meet and confer shall take place in person, or at a minimum, via a telephonic 20 conference. The mere exchange of letters or e-mails alone is not sufficient. As part of their joint 21 statement related to a discovery motion submitted pursuant to Local Rule 251, the parties shall 22 also specifically outline: (a) what meet-and-confer efforts were undertaken; (b) when and where 23
24 6 In the joint statement, plaintiff requested automatic leave to amend within six months to add additional defendants. This request is denied. Should plaintiff wish to add additional defendants 25 or amend his claims, he is required to file a motion to amend and show good cause under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15. 26
27 7 “Completed” means (1) all discovery shall have been conducted so that all depositions have been taken and (2) any disputes related to discovery shall have been resolved by appropriate order 28 if necessary and, where discovery has been ordered, the order has been complied with. 1 such discussions took place; (c) who was present; and (d) how the parties’ disputes were 2 narrowed as a result of such discussions. Failure to comply with these requirements may result in 3 summary denial of any discovery motion. 4 The court strongly encourages the use of informal telephonic discovery conferences in 5 lieu of formal discovery motion practice. The procedures and conditions for requesting and 6 conducting such an informal telephonic discovery conference are outlined in Judge Newman’s 7 “Order re: Informal Telephonic Conferences re: Discovery Disputes,” posted on Judge Newman’s 8 page on the court’s website. Additionally, subject to the court’s availability, the court will 9 endeavor to make itself available to rule on disputes encountered at oral depositions, so as to 10 avoid such depositions from breaking down. In the course of the deposition, the parties may 11 contact Judge Newman’s courtroom deputy clerk at (916) 930-4187 to inquire about Judge 12 Newman’s availability. However, the parties are cautioned that these informal procedures are not 13 to be abused, and the court may impose appropriate sanctions on an offending party or parties, 14 even in the course of informal discovery conferences. 16 The parties shall disclose any expert witnesses in accordance with the specifications of 17 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) no later than November 13, 2023. Any rebuttal expert 18 disclosures shall be made in accordance with the same rule no later than December 13, 2023. 19 Expert disclosures shall be filed with the court and served on all other parties. All expert 20 discovery shall be completed (see fn. 3) by February 12, 2024. The same procedures for fact- 21 discovery disputes applies to expert disputes. 22 An expert witness not timely disclosed will not be permitted to testify unless the party 23 offering the witness demonstrates that: (a) the necessity of the witness could not have been 24 reasonably anticipated at the time that the expert disclosures were due; (b) the court and opposing 25 counsel were promptly notified upon discovery of the witness; and (c) the witness was promptly 26 proffered for deposition. Failure to provide the information required by Federal Rule of Civil 27 Procedure 26(a)(2) along with the expert disclosures may lead to preclusion of the expert’s 28 testimony or other appropriate sanctions. 2 All law and motion, except as to the earlier deadlines for discovery-related matters, shall 3 be completed (i.e. heard) by April 9, 2024. The parties are cautioned to refer to the Local Rules 4 regarding the requirements for noticing such motions on the court’s regularly scheduled law and 5 motion calendar, including Local Rule 230. Judge Newman generally hears civil motions on 6 Tuesdays at 9:00 a.m. This paragraph does not preclude motions for continuances, motions in 7 limine related to trial, temporary restraining orders, or other emergency applications, for which 8 the court may set a special briefing schedule, if necessary or appropriate. 9 ALL PURELY LEGAL ISSUES ARE TO BE RESOLVED BY TIMELY PRETRIAL 10 MOTION. The purpose of law and motion is to narrow and refine the legal issues raised by the 11 case, as well as to dispose of those issues that are susceptible to resolution without trial by pretrial 12 motion. To accomplish that purpose, the parties shall identify and fully research the issues 13 presented by the case, then examine those issues in light of the evidence obtained through 14 discovery. If, after examining the legal issues and facts, it appears to the parties an issue can be 15 resolved by pretrial motion, counsel are to file the appropriate motion consistent with the law and 16 motion deadlines above. Conversely, motions in limine are procedural devices designed to 17 address the admissibility of evidence. THE COURT WILL LOOK WITH DISFAVOR UPON 18 SUBSTANTIVE MOTIONS PRESENTED UNDER THE GUISE OF MOTIONS IN LIMINE 20 FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE/TRIAL SETTING 21 Defendants request a jury trial. The final pretrial conference and jury trial will take place 22 before the assigned district judge, the Hon. Chief Judge Kimberly J. Mueller. Pursuant to Judge 23 Mueller’s Standing Scheduling Order for Civil Cases, the undersigned declines to set pretrial 24 conference and trial dates at this time. Instead, Judge Mueller will set a final pretrial conference 25 date after the resolution of any dispositive motions (or passage of the dispositive motion cutoff), 26 with trial dates being determined at the pretrial conference. Trials typically begin within 60 to 27 120 days from the date of the pretrial conference, so the parties should be available for trial 28 accordingly, and should be prepared to confirm trial dates at the final pretrial conference. 2 Any objections to this pretrial scheduling order shall be filed within seven (7) days. 4 Should the parties wish to conduct a settlement conference with a magistrate judge, they 5 || are to contact the undersigned’s courtroom deputy to inquire about the availability of a magistrate 6 || judge for a settlement conference. 8 The parties are reminded that pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4), this 9 || order shall not be modified except by leave of court upon a showing of “good cause.” See 10 | Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604 (9th Cir. 1992). Mere agreement by the 11 || parties pursuant to a stipulation does not constitute good cause, nor does the unavailability of 12 || witnesses or counsel, except in extraordinary circumstances. 13 || Dated: February 1, 2023 i Aectl Aharon iliy.1305 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28