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.

White v. City of Sacramento

United States District Court, E.D. California

July 22, 2019

JORDAN BERNARD WHITE, Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF SACRAMENTO, et al., Defendants.

          STATUS (PRETRIAL SCHEDULING) ORDER

         An initial scheduling conference was held in this case on July 18, 2019. Eliezer Cohen appeared for plaintiff; Andrea Velasquez appeared for defendant City of Sacramento and Amanda McDermott appeared for defendants County of Sacramento and Sacramento County Sheriff's Department.

         Having reviewed the parties' Joint Status Report filed on July 11, 2019, and discussed a schedule for the case with counsel at the hearing, the court makes the following orders:

         I. SERVICE OF PROCESS

         All named defendants have been served and no further service is permitted without leave of court, good cause having been shown.

         II. ADDITIONAL PARTIES/AMENDMENTS/PLEADINGS

         Plaintiff may amend the complaint to add additional parties following discovery. No. joinder of parties or amendments to pleadings is permitted without leave of court, good cause having been shown. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b); Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604 (9th Cir. 1992).

         III. JURISDICTION/VENUE

         Jurisdiction is predicated upon 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 13343(a)(3). Jurisdiction and venue are not disputed.

         IV. DISCOVERY

         Initial disclosures as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a) shall be completed by August 1, 2019. All discovery shall be completed by June 1, 2020. In this context, “completed” means that all discovery shall have been conducted so that all depositions have been taken and any disputes relative to discovery shall have been resolved by appropriate order if necessary and, where discovery has been ordered, the order has been obeyed. All motions to compel discovery must be noticed on the magistrate judge's calendar in accordance with the local rules of this court. While the assigned magistrate judge reviews proposed discovery phase protective orders, requests to seal or redact are decided by Judge Mueller as discussed in more detail below. In addition, while the assigned magistrate judge handles discovery motions, the magistrate judge cannot change the schedule set in this order, except that the magistrate judge may modify a discovery cutoff to the extent such modification does not have the effect of requiring a change to the balance of the schedule.

         V. DISCLOSURE OF EXPERT WITNESSES

         All counsel are to designate in writing and serve upon all other parties the name, address, and area of expertise of each expert that they propose to tender at trial not later than August 3, 2020. The designation shall be accompanied by a written report prepared and signed by the witness. The report shall comply with Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(2)(B). By September 2, 2020, any party who previously disclosed expert witnesses may submit a rebuttal list of expert witnesses who will express an opinion on a subject covered by an expert designated by an adverse party, if the party rebutting an expert witness designation has not previously retained an expert to testify on that subject. The rebuttal designation shall be accompanied by a written report, which shall also comply with the conditions stated above.

         Failure of a party to comply with the disclosure schedule as set forth above in all likelihood will preclude that party from calling the expert witness at the time of trial. An expert witness not appearing on the designation will not be permitted to testify unless the party offering the witness demonstrates: (a) that the necessity for the witness could not have been reasonably anticipated at the time the list was proffered; (b) that the court and opposing counsel were promptly notified upon discovery of the witness; and (c) that the witness was promptly made available for deposition.

         For purposes of this scheduling order, an “expert” is any person who may be used at trial to present evidence under Rules 702, 703 and 705 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, which include both “percipient experts” (persons who, because of their expertise, have rendered expert opinions in the normal course of their work duties or observations pertinent to the issues in the case) and “retained experts” (persons specifically designated by a party to be a testifying expert for the purposes of litigation). A party shall identify whether a disclosed expert is percipient, retained, or both. It will be assumed that a party designating a retained expert has acquired ...


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.