United States District Court, S.D. California
R.N., a minor by and through his guardian ad litem Elizabeth Neel, Plaintiff,
United States of America; Rosanne Estropia, an individual; Solodad Dith, an individual; Debbie Tenley, an individual; Catherine Prestonise, an individual; Zeny, an individual; Sarah, an individual; Does 1 through 25 inclusive, Defendants.
ORDER CONTINUING EARLY NEUTRAL EVALUATION CONFERENCE,
RULE 26 COMPLIANCE, AND CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE [ECF NO.
BERNARD G. SKOMAL, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
the Court is a Joint Motion to Continue Hearing (ECF No. 10)
submitted on November 8, 2017. Previously, the Court set an
Early Neutral Evaluation Conference for December 8, 2017.
(ECF No. 6.) Due to Plaintiff's counsel's preplanned
vacation from December 4, 2017 to December 13, 2017, the
parties request a continuance of the Early Neutral Evaluation
Conference until February 2, 2018 or on a date as soon
thereafter as may be scheduled. (ECF No. 10 at 1-2.)
Accordingly, good cause appearing, the parties' Joint
Motion to Continue Hearing (ECF No. 10) is
IS HEREBY ORDERED that an Early Neutral Evaluation
of your case will be held on February 2,
2018, at 1:30 PM
before United States Magistrate Judge Bernard G. Skomal,
United States District Court, 333 W. Broadway, Suite 1280,
San Diego, California.
following are mandatory guidelines for the parties
preparing for the Early Neutral Evaluation
Purpose of Conference: The purpose
of the Early Neutral Evaluation Conference
(“ENE”) is to hold a serious discussion of every
aspect of the lawsuit in an effort to achieve an early
resolution of the case. All conference discussions will be
off the record, privileged and confidential. Counsel for any
non-English speaking party is responsible for arranging for
the appearance of an interpreter at the conference.
Personal Appearance of Parties Is
Required: All parties, adjusters for insured
defendants, and client representatives must be present and
have full and complete authority to enter into a binding
settlement at the ENE. The purpose of this requirement is to have
representatives present who can settle the case during the
course of the conference without consulting a superior.
Counsel for a government entity may be excused from this
requirement so long as the government attorney who attends
the ENE conference (1) has primary responsibility for
handling the case; and (2) may negotiate settlement offers
which the attorney is willing to recommend to the government
official having ultimate settlement authority. Other parties
seeking permission to be excused from attending the ENE in
person must follow the procedures outlined in Judge
Skomal's Chambers' Rules. (See Judge
Skomal's Chambers' Rules at p. 3, section C.) Failure
of any of the above parties to appear at the ENE conference
without the Court's permission will be grounds for
sanctions. The principal attorneys responsible for the
litigation must also be present in person and prepared to
discuss all of the legal and
factual issues in the case.
Confidential ENE Statements
Required: No later than January 19,
2018, the parties must submit confidential
statements of seven pages or less directly to Judge Skomal.
Please also attach relevant exhibits. The statement must
address the legal and factual issues in the case and should
focus on issues most pertinent to settling the matter. The
statement should not repeat facts or law contained in the
Complaint or Answer. Statements do not need to be filed or
served on opposing counsel. The statement must also include
any prior settlement offer or demand, as well as the offer or
demand the party will make at the ENE. The Court will keep
this information confidential unless the party authorizes the
Court to share the information with opposing counsel.
ENE statements must be emailed to
New Parties Must Be Notified by Plaintiff's
Counsel: Plaintiff's counsel shall give
notice of the ENE to parties responding to the complaint
after the date of this notice.
Case Management Conference: Any
objections made to initial disclosure pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1)(A)-(D) are overruled, and
the parties are ordered to proceed with the initial
disclosure process. Any further objections to initial
disclosure will be resolved as required by Rule 26 and Judge
Skomal's Chambers' Rules regarding discovery
a. The Rule 26(f) conference shall be completed on or before
January 5, 2018;
b. The date of initial disclosure pursuant to Rule
26(a)(1)(A-D) shall occur before January 12,
c. A Joint Discovery Plan shall be filed on the CM/ECF system
as well as lodged with Magistrate Judge Skomal by delivering
the plan directly to chambers or by emailing it to
email@example.com, on or before
January 19, 2018. The plan must be
one document and must explicitly cover the parties' views
and proposals for each item identified in Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 26(f)(3). In addition, Judge Skomal requires
the discovery plan to identify whether the parties will
consent to jurisdiction of a Magistrate Judge. Agreements
made in the Discovery Plan will be treated as binding
stipulations that are effectively incorporated into the
Court's Case Management Order.
cases involving significant document production or any
electronic discovery, the parties must also include the
process and procedure for “claw back” or
“quick peek” agreements as contemplated by
Federal Rule of Evidence 502(d). The parties should also
address whether an order providing for protection under Rule
502(e) is needed.
the parties must thoughtfully meet and confer about
electronic discovery and include answers to the ...