Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Stonum v. County of Kern

United States District Court, E.D. California

July 14, 2017

DWAYNE STONUM, Plaintiff,
v.
COUNTY OF KERN, Defendants.

          SCHEDULING ORDER

          Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Courtroom 5 Jury trial [1]: 4-6 days

         I. Date of Scheduling Conference July 14, 2017.

         II. Appearances of Counsel Plaintiff Dywane Stonum appeared in pro per. James Brannen appeared on behalf of Defendant.

         III. Magistrate Judge Consent:

         Notice of Congested Docket and Court Policy of Trailing

         Due to the District Judges' heavy caseload, the newly adopted policy of the Fresno Division of the Eastern District is to trail all civil cases. The parties are hereby notified that for a trial date set before a District Judge, the parties will trail indefinitely behind any higher priority criminal or older civil case set on the same date until a courtroom becomes available. The trial date will not be reset to a continued date.

         The Magistrate Judges' availability is far more realistic and accommodating to parties than that of the U.S. District Judges who carry the heaviest caseloads in the nation and who must prioritize criminal and older civil cases over more recently filed civil cases. A United States Magistrate Judge may conduct trials, including entry of final judgment, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 73, and Local Rule 305. Any appeal from a judgment entered by a United States Magistrate Judge is taken directly to the United States Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit.

         The Fresno Division of the Eastern District of California, whenever possible, is utilizing United States Article III District Court Judges from throughout the nation as Visiting Judges. Pursuant to the Local Rules, Appendix A, such reassignments will be random, and the parties will receive no advance notice before their case is reassigned to an Article III District Court Judge from outside of the Eastern District of California.

         The defendants have consented to magistrate judge consent. (Doc. 16) Therefore, the plaintiff is directed to consider consenting to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction to conduct all further proceedings, including trial. Within 10 days of the date of this order, he SHALL file a consent/decline form (provided by the Court at the inception of this case) indicating whether he will consent to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge.

         IV. Pleading Amendment Deadline

         Any requested pleading amendments are ordered to be filed, either through a stipulation or motion to amend, no later than October 9, 2017. Any motion to amend the pleadings shall be heard by the Honorable Dale A. Drozd, United States District Court Judge.

         V. Discovery Plan and Cut-Off Date

The parties are ordered to exchange the initial disclosures required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(1) on or before July 31, 2017.

         The parties are ordered to complete all discovery pertaining to non-experts on or before January 19, 2018, and all discovery pertaining to experts on or before February 5, 2018.

         The parties are directed to disclose all expert witnesses[2], in writing, on or before December 11, 2017, and to disclose all rebuttal experts on or before January 8, 2018. The written designation of retained and non-retained experts shall be made pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 26(a)(2), (A), (B), and (C) and shall include all information required thereunder. Failure to designate experts in compliance with this order may result in the Court excluding the testimony or other evidence offered through such experts that are not disclosed pursuant to this order.

         The provisions of Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(4) and (5) shall apply to all discovery relating to experts and their opinions. Experts must be fully prepared to be examined on all subjects and opinions included in the designation. Failure to comply will result in the imposition of sanctions, which may include striking the expert designation and preclusion of expert testimony.

         The provisions of Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(e) regarding a party's duty to timely supplement disclosures and responses to discovery requests will be strictly enforced.

         A mid-discovery status conference is scheduled for December 11, 2017 at 8:45 a.m. before the Honorable Jennifer L. Thurston, U.S. Magistrate Judge, located at 510 19th Street, Bakersfield, California. Counsel SHALL file a joint mid-discovery status conference report one week before the conference. Counsel also SHALL lodge the status report via e-mail to JLTorders@caed.uscourts.gov. The joint statement SHALL outline the discovery counsel have completed and that which needs to be completed as well as any impediments to completing the discovery within the deadlines set forth in this order. Counsel may appear via teleconference by dialing (888) 557-8511 and entering Access Code 1652736, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.