Arnold v. County of El Dorado
Filing
23
STATUS (PRETRIAL SCHEDULING) ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 11/21/11: Designation of Expert Witnesses due by 4/5/2012. Discovery due by 5/17/2012. Dispositive Motions filed by 6/28/2012. Final Pretrial Conference set for 8/15/2012 at 11:00 AM in Courtroom 3 (KJM) before Judge Kimberly J. Mueller. Jury Trial set for 10/1/2012 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 3 (KJM) before Judge Kimberly J. Mueller. (Kaminski, H)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
PENNY ARNOLD,
9
Plaintiff,
10
11
vs.
COUNTY OF EL DORADO, et al.,
12
13
CIV. NO. S-10-3119 KJM GGH PS
STATUS (PRETRIAL
SCHEDULING) ORDER
Defendant.
___________________________________/
14
Defendants’ second motion to dismiss was tentatively resolved on November 17,
15
2011. Therefore, this case will be scheduled. Accordingly, the court makes the following
16
findings and orders:
17
SERVICE OF PROCESS
18
All defendants have been served and no further service is permitted except with
19
leave of court, good cause having been shown.
20
JOINDER OF PARTIES/AMENDMENTS
21
No further joinder of parties or amendments to pleadings is permitted except with
22
leave of court, good cause having been shown.
23
JURISDICTION/VENUE
24
Jurisdiction is undisputed and is hereby found to be proper, as is venue.
25
\\\\
26
\\\\
1
1
MOTION HEARING SCHEDULES
2
All law and motion except as to discovery is left open, save and except that it
3
shall be conducted so as to be completed by June 28, 2012. The word “completed” in this
4
context means that all law and motion matters must be heard by the above date. Counsel are
5
cautioned to refer to the local rules regarding the requirements for noticing such motions on the
6
court’s regularly scheduled law and motion calendar. This paragraph does not preclude motions
7
for continuances, temporary restraining orders or other emergency applications, and is subject to
8
any special scheduling set forth in the “MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS” paragraph below.
9
The parties should keep in mind that the purpose of law and motion is to narrow
10
and refine the legal issues raised by the case, and to dispose of by pretrial motion those issues
11
that are susceptible to resolution without trial. To accomplish that purpose, the parties need to
12
identify and fully research the issues presented by the case, and then examine those issues in light
13
of the evidence gleaned through discovery. If it appears to counsel after examining the legal
14
issues and facts that an issue can be resolved by pretrial motion, counsel are to file the
15
appropriate motion by the law and motion cutoff set forth supra.
16
ALL PURELY LEGAL ISSUES ARE TO BE RESOLVED BY TIMELY
17
PRETRIAL MOTION. Counsel are reminded that motions in limine are procedural devices
18
designed to address the admissibility of evidence. COUNSEL ARE CAUTIONED THAT THE
19
COURT WILL LOOK WITH DISFAVOR UPON SUBSTANTIVE MOTIONS PRESENTED
20
IN THE GUISE OF MOTIONS IN LIMINE AT THE TIME OF TRIAL.
21
DISCOVERY
22
All discovery is left open, save and except that it shall be so conducted as to be
23
completed by May 17, 2012. The word “completed” means that all discovery shall have been
24
conducted so that all depositions have been taken and any disputes relative to discovery shall
25
have been resolved by appropriate order if necessary and, where discovery has been ordered, the
26
order has been complied with. Motions to compel discovery must be noticed on the
2
1
undersigned’s calendar in accordance with the local rules of this court and so that such motions
2
will be heard not later than May 3, 2012.
3
EXPERT DISCLOSURE
4
All counsel (and/or pro se parties) are to designate in writing and file with the
5
court, and serve upon all other parties, the names of all experts that they propose to tender at trial
6
not later than April 5, 2012. An expert witness not appearing on said lists will not be permitted
7
to testify unless the party offering the witness demonstrates: (a) that the necessity of the witness
8
could not have been reasonably anticipated at the time the lists were exchanged; (b) the court and
9
opposing counsel were promptly notified upon discovery of the witness; and (c) that the witness
10
was promptly proffered for deposition. Failure to provide the information required along with
11
the expert designation may lead to preclusion of the expert’s testimony or other appropriate
12
sanctions.
13
For the purposes of this scheduling order, experts are defined as “percipient” and
14
designated experts. Both types of experts shall be listed. Percipient experts are persons who,
15
because of their expertise, have rendered expert opinions in the normal course of their work
16
duties or observations pertinent to the issues in the case. Another term for their opinions are
17
“historical opinions.” Percipient experts are experts who, unless also designated as retained
18
experts, are limited to testifying to their historical opinions and the reasons for them. That is,
19
they may be asked to testify to their opinions given in the past and the whys and wherefores
20
concerning the development of that opinion. However, they may not be asked to render a current
21
opinion for the purposes of the litigation.
22
Retained experts, who may be percipient experts as well, are specifically
23
designated by a party to be a testifying expert for the purposes of the litigation. The retained
24
Rule 26 expert may express opinions formed for the purposes of the litigation.1 A party
25
1
26
Retained experts may, or may not, be paid for their services. The critical distinction between
percipient and retained experts is that the retained expert will have gathered information during the
3
1
designating a retained expert will be assumed to have acquired the express permission of the
2
witness to be so listed. 2
3
The parties shall comply with the information disclosure provisions of Fed. R.
4
Civ. P. 26 (a)(2) (B) for any expert, who is in whole or in part designated as a retained expert.
5
This information is due at the time of designation. Failure to supply the required information
6
may result in the striking of the retained expert. No reports are necessary for purely percipient
7
experts. Retained experts are to be fully prepared to render an informed opinion at the time of
8
designation so that they may fully participate in any deposition taken by the opposing party.
9
Retained experts will not be permitted to testify at trial as to any information gathered or
10
evaluated, or opinion formed, which should have been reasonably available at the time of
11
designation. The court will closely scrutinize for discovery abuse deposition opinions which
12
differ markedly in nature and/or in bases from those expressed in the mandatory information
13
disclosure.
14
FINAL PRETRIAL STATEMENTS AND CONFERENCE
15
The Final Pretrial Conference is set in courtroom #3 of the Honorable Kimberly J.
16
Mueller on August 15, 2012, at 11:00 a.m. Counsel are cautioned that counsel appearing for
17
Pretrial will in fact try the matter.
18
\\\\
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
course of the litigation for the purpose of rendering an opinion on a disputed fact in the litigation.
Percipient experts are limited to the information available at the time their historical opinions were
given. For example, a physician whose only contact with the litigation the was the treatment of a
party prior to the commencement of litigation, or even after commencement, and whose only purpose
was to treat the party, is a percipient expert. This doctor may have issued an opinion in the medical
records, but he is not retained for the purpose of the litigation. However, that same doctor, if asked
by a party to render an opinion for the purpose of litigation, over and above any historically rendered
opinions, is a retained expert. See Goodman v. Staples The Office Superstore LLC, 644 F.3d 817
(9th Cir. 2011) (holding percipient treating physician who transforms into expert witness must
comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2), and clarifying when such transformation takes place).
2
26
The court is not interested in a designation of non-testifying Rule 26 experts, i.e., nontestifying consultants.
4
1
All parties are to be fully prepared for trial at the time of the Pretrial Conference,
2
with no matters remaining to be accomplished except production of witnesses for oral testimony.
3
Counsel are referred to Local Rules 281 and 282 relating to the contents of and time for filing
4
Pretrial Statements. A FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH LOCAL RULES 281 AND 282 WILL
5
BE GROUNDS FOR SANCTIONS.
6
Notwithstanding the provisions of Local Rule 281, which contemplates the filing
7
of separate Pretrial Statements by plaintiffs and defendants, the parties are to prepare a JOINT
8
STATEMENT with respect to the undisputed facts and disputed factual issues of the case. See
9
Local Rule 281(b)(3), (4), and (6). The undisputed facts and disputed factual issues are to be set
10
forth in two separate sections. The parties should identify those facts which are relevant to each
11
separate cause of action. In this regard, the parties are to number each individual fact or factual
12
issue. Where the parties are unable to agree as to what factual issues are properly before the
13
court for trial, they should nevertheless list in the section on “DISPUTED FACTUAL ISSUES”
14
all issues asserted by any of the parties and explain by parenthetical the controversy concerning
15
each issue. The parties should keep in mind that, in general, each fact should relate or
16
correspond to an element of the relevant cause of action. The parties should also keep in mind
17
that the purpose of listing the disputed factual issues is to apprise the court and all parties about
18
the precise issues that will be litigated at trial. The court is not interested in a listing of all
19
evidentiary facts underlying the issues that are in dispute.3 The joint statement of undisputed
20
facts and disputed factual issues is to be filed with the court concurrently with the filing of
21
3
22
23
24
25
26
For example, and simplistically, if the claim to be adjudicated involved a traffic accident,
the disputed factual issues might be: whether defendant negligently drove his vehicle through the
intersection by reason of failing to observe traffic signals; whether such negligence caused the
accident involving plaintiff, whether plaintiff’s actions (being distracted) contributed to the accident;
whether plaintiff suffered injury and damages as a result of the accident [perhaps breaking out
specific injuries and damages]. It would be inappropriate and unhelpful to list myriad evidentiary
facts in dispute– whether the light had turned yellow at the time defendant’s vehicle approached the
intersection, whether defendants’ skid marks were 30 feet long, whether plaintiff was distracted by
use of a cell phone, and so forth. However, with respect to the listing of undisputed facts, the court
will accept agreements as to evidentiary facts.
5
1
plaintiff’s Pretrial Statement. If the case is tried to a jury, the undisputed facts will be read to the
2
jury.
3
Pursuant to Local Rule 281(b)(10) and (11), the parties are required to provide in
4
their Pretrial Statements a list of witnesses and exhibits that they propose to proffer at trial, no
5
matter for what purpose. These lists shall not be contained in the Pretrial Statement itself, but
6
shall be attached as separate documents to be used as addenda to the Final Pretrial Order.
7
Plaintiff’s exhibits shall be listed numerically; defendant’s exhibits shall be listed alphabetically.
8
The Pretrial Order will contain a stringent standard for the proffering of witnesses and exhibits at
9
trial not listed in the Pretrial Order. Counsel are cautioned that the standard will be strictly
10
applied. On the other hand, the listing of exhibits or witnesses which counsel do not intend to
11
call or use will be viewed as an abuse of the court’s processes.
12
Counsel are also reminded that, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16, it will be their duty
13
at the Pretrial Conference to aid the court in (a) formulation and simplification of issues and the
14
elimination of frivolous claims or defenses; (b) settling of facts which should be properly
15
admitted; and (c) the avoidance of unnecessary proof and cumulative evidence. Counsel must
16
prepare their Pretrial Statements, and participate in good faith at the Pretrial Conference, with
17
these aims in mind. A FAILURE TO DO SO MAY RESULT IN THE IMPOSITION OF
18
SANCTIONS which may include monetary sanctions, orders precluding proof, eliminations of
19
claims or defenses, or such other sanctions as the court deems appropriate.
20
TRIAL SETTING
21
Trial is set for October 1, 2012 at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom No. #3 before the
22
Honorable Kimberly J. Mueller. Trial will be by jury. The court expects the trial will take
23
approximately four days.
24
SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE
25
26
A Settlement Conference will be set at the time of the Pretrial Conference.
\\\\
6
1
MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
2
There appear to be no other matters presently pending before the court that will
3
aid the just and expeditious disposition of this matter.
4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
5
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b), THIS COURT SUMMARIZES THE
6
7
SCHEDULING ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
1.
The parties may conduct discovery until May 17, 2012. Motions to
8
compel discovery are to be noticed to be heard by May 3, 2012, as
9
more specifically described in this order.
10
2.
The parties shall disclose experts, as described herein, by April 5, 2012.
11
3.
All pretrial motions, except motions to compel discovery, shall be
12
13
completed as described herein on or before June 28, 2012.
4.
Pretrial Conference (as described in Local Rule 282) is set in this case for
14
August 15, 2012 at 11:00 a.m. Pretrial statements shall be filed in accord
15
with Local Rules 281 and 282.
16
17
5.
This matter is set for jury trial on October 1, 2012, at 9:00 a.m.
DATED: November 21, 2011
18
/s/ Gregory G. Hollows
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
19
20
GGH:076
Arnold3119.so.wpd
21
22
23
24
25
26
7
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
