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.

Williams v. County of San Diego

United States District Court, S.D. California

December 23, 2019

KATY WILLIAMS, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION TO CONTINUE SCHEDULING ORDER AND PRETRIAL PROCEEDING DATES [ECF No. 157]

          JILL L. BURKHARDT, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Before the Court is a Joint Motion to Continue Scheduling Order and Pretrial Proceeding Dates. (ECF No. 157.) For good cause shown, the Joint Motion is GRANTED. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

         1. All discovery, including expert discovery, must be completed by all parties by April 10, 2020.[1] “Completed” means that all discovery under Rules 30-36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and discovery subpoenas under Rule 45, must be initiated a sufficient period of time in advance of the cut-off date, so that it may be completed by the cut-off date, taking into account the times for service, notice and response as set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Counsel must promptly and in good faith meet and confer with regard to all discovery disputes in compliance with Local Rule 26.1(a). The Court expects counsel to make every effort to resolve all disputes without court intervention through the meet and confer process. If the parties reach an impasse on any discovery issue, counsel must file an appropriate motion within the time limit and procedures outlined in the undersigned magistrate judge's chambers rules. A failure to comply in this regard will result in a waiver of a party's discovery issue. Absent an order of the court, no stipulation continuing or altering this requirement will be recognized by the court.

         Discovery motions must be filed in the time and manner directed by Magistrate Judge Burkhardt (see Judge Burkhardt's Civil Chambers Rules on Discovery Disputes available on the Court's website). All discovery motions must be filed within 30 days of the service of an objection, answer, or response which becomes the subject of dispute, or the passage of a discovery due date without response or production, and only after counsel (and any unrepresented parties) have met and conferred to resolve the dispute and complied with Section IV.B. of Judge Burkhardt's Civil Chambers Rules.

         2. Failure to comply with this section or any other discovery order of the court may result in the sanctions provided for in Fed.R.Civ.P. 37, including a prohibition on the introduction of experts or other designated matters in evidence.

         3. All dispositive pretrial motions, including motions for summary judgment and motions addressing Daubert issues, must be filed by May 8, 2020.[2] Counsel for the moving party must obtain a motion hearing date from Judge Anello's law clerk. The period of time between the date you request a motion date and the hearing date may vary from one district judge to another. Please plan accordingly. Failure to make a timely request for a motion date may result in the motion not being heard.

         4. If appropriate, following the filing of an order ruling on a motion for summary judgment or other dispositive pretrial motion, or in the event no such motion is filed, after the expiration of the deadline set forth in paragraph 3, supra, Judge Anello will issue a pretrial scheduling order setting a pretrial conference, trial date, and all related pretrial deadlines. The parties must review and be familiar with Judge Anello's Civil Chambers Rules, which provide additional information regarding pretrial scheduling.

         5. A Mandatory Settlement Conference will be conducted on April 9, 2020 at 1:45 p.m. in the chambers of Magistrate Judge Jill L. Burkhardt. Counsel or any party representing himself or herself must submit confidential settlement briefs directly to the magistrate judge's chambers by March 30, 2020. All parties are ordered to read and fully comply with the Chambers Rules of the assigned Magistrate Judge.

         The confidential settlement statements should be lodged by e-mail to efileBurkhardt@casd.uscourts.gov. Each party's settlement statement shall concisely set forth the following: (1) the party's statement of the case; (2) the controlling legal issues; (3) issues of liability and damages; (4) the party's settlement position, including the last offer or demand made by that party; (5) a separate statement of the offer or demand the party is prepared to make at the settlement conference; and (6) a list of all attorney and non-attorney conference attendees for that side, including the name(s) and title(s)/position(s) of the party/party representative(s) who will attend and have settlement authority at the conference. If exhibits are attached and the total submission amounts to more than 20 pages, a hard copy must also be delivered directly to Magistrate Judge Burkhardt's chambers. Settlement conference statements shall not be filed with the Clerk of the Court. Settlement conference statements may be exchanged confidentially with opposing counsel within the parties' discretion.

         Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 16.3, all party representatives and claims adjusters for insured defendants with full and unlimited authority[3] to negotiate and enter into a binding settlement, as well as the principal attorney(s) responsible for the litigation, must be present and legally and factually prepared to discuss and resolve the case at the mandatory settlement conference. In the case of an entity, an authorized representative of the entity who is not retained outside counsel must be present and must have discretionary authority to commit the entity to pay an amount up to the amount of the Plaintiff's prayer (excluding punitive damages prayers). 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 United States government entity may be excused from this requirement so long as the government attorney who attends the MSC 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.

         Failure to attend the conference or obtain proper excuse will be considered grounds for sanctions.

         6. A post trial settlement conference before a magistrate judge may be held ...


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.