29 Scheduling Order

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 29

Filed 06/06/2007

Page 1 of 19

1 2 3 4 5 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8 9

DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O.,

10

Plaintiff,

11 12

v. COUNTY OF KERN, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

15

1:07-cv-0026 OWW TAG SCHEDULING CONFERENCE ORDER Discovery Cut-Off: 4/4/08 Non-Dispositive Motion Filing Deadline: 4/21/08 Dispositive Motion Filing Deadline: 5/5/08 Settlement Conference Date: 2/6/08 10:00 Ctrm. 8

16 17

Pre-Trial Conference Date: 7/14/08 11:00 Ctrm. 3

18

Trial Date: 8/26/08 9:00 Ctrm. 3 (JT-14 days)

19 20 21

I.

22 23 24 25 26

Date of Scheduling Conference. May 31, 2007.

II.

Appearances Of Counsel. Eugene D. Lee, Esq., and Joan Harrington, Esq., appeared on

behalf of Plaintiff. Mark A. Wasser, Esq., appeared on behalf of Defendants

27

County of Kern, Peter Bryan, Irwin Harris, Eugene Kercher,

28

Jennifer Abraham, Scott Ragland, Toni Smith and William Roy. 1

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

1 2

III.

Document 29

Filed 06/06/2007

Page 2 of 19

Summary of Pleadings. 1.

This is an individual action brought by Plaintiff David

3

F. Jadwin, D.O., a whistleblowing physician with disabilities,

4

against his employer, (i) the County of Kern (“Defendant County”

5

or “the County”), owner and operator of Kern Medical Center

6

(“KMC”) the health facility at which Plaintiff was employed; (ii)

7

individual Defendants Peter Bryan (“Bryan”), Chief Executive

8

Officer of Kern Medical Center (“KMC”); Eugene Kercher, M.D.,

9

President of Medical Staff at KMC (“Kercher”); Jennifer Abraham,

10

M.D., Immediate Past President of Medical Staff at KMC

11

(“Abraham”); Scott Ragland, M.D., President-Elect of Medical

12

Staff at KMC (“Ragland”); and Toni Smith, Chief Nurse Executive

13

of KMC, (“Smith”), both personally and in their official

14

capacities; and (iii) individual Defendants Irwin Harris, M.D.,

15

Chief Medical Officer of KMC (“Harris”); William Roy, M.D., Chief

16

of the Division of Gynecologic Oncology at KMC (“Roy)”; and Does

17

1 through 10.

18

2.

Plaintiff’s claims against his employer, Defendant

19

County, allege violations of section 1278.5 of the Health &

20

Safety Code which prohibits retaliation against a health care

21

provider who reports suspected unsafe care and conditions of

22

patients in a health care facility; section 1102.5 of the Labor

23

Code which prohibits retaliation against an employee or reporting

24

or refusing to participate in suspected violations of the law;

25

the California Family Rights Act (sections 12945.1, et seq., of

26

the Government Code) (“CFRA”) and the Family and Medical Leave

27

Act (sections 2601, et seq. of the United States Code) (“FMLA”)

28

which prohibit interference with an employee’s right to medical 2

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 29

Filed 06/06/2007

Page 3 of 19

1

leave and retaliation for an employee’s exercise of the right to

2

medical leave; and the Fair Employment and Housing Act

3

[subdivisions (a), (m) & (n) of Section 12940 of the Government

4

Code] (“FEHA”) which prohibits discrimination against an employee

5

with a disability, failure to provide reasonable accommodation,

6

and failure to engage in an interactive process; and recovery of

7

wrongfully deducted wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (29

8

U.S.C. §§ 201, et seq.) (“FLSA”).

9

3.

Plaintiff sues Defendants County, Roy, Harris and Does

10

1 through 10, for defamation; and also sues each of the

11

individual Defendants except for Roy and Harris, both in their

12

personal capacity and in their official capacity as members of

13

the KMC Joint Conference Committee (“JCC”), for violation of

14

Plaintiff’s 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution

15

right to procedural due process pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983

16

(“Due Process”).

17

4.

Plaintiff brings this action for general, compensatory,

18

and punitive damages; prejudgment interest, costs and attorneys’

19

fees; injunctive and declaratory relief; and other appropriate

20

and just relief resulting from Defendants’ unlawful conduct.

21

5.

Plaintiff is not a whistleblower and is not disabled.

22

He was employed by the County of Kern as a staff pathologist at

23

Kern Medical Center, pursuant to a written agreement, and

24

assigned to the position of Chair of the Pathology Department.

25

6.

During his tenure at Kern Medical Center, Plaintiff’s

26

behavior caused several pathologists, technicians and support

27

personnel whom he criticized, intimidated, harassed and

28

retaliated against to quit and seek employment elsewhere. 3

He

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 29

Filed 06/06/2007

Page 4 of 19

1

alienated many of the physicians at Kern Medical Center through

2

criticism, disruptive behavior, disrespect, anger, arrogance and

3

retaliation.

4

at Kern Medical Center and interfered with patient care through

5

obstructionist behavior and secretive practices.

6

reports were characterized by frequent mistakes, changes in

7

opinion and untimely service, all of which compromised patient

8

care.

9

other physicians at Kern Medical Center regarding Plaintiff’s

Plaintiff complained about procedures and policies

His pathology

Disagreements arose between Plaintiff and many of the

10

behavior, his anger and confrontational personal style, his

11

inaccurate and untimely diagnoses, his disruptive behavior, his

12

complaints about medical procedures, his refusal to follow even

13

his own rules, his intimidation of staff and patient management.

14

7.

As a result of the stresses and disagreements that

15

Plaintiff brought into the workplace, his injuries and illnesses,

16

family health issues and outside business interests, Plaintiff

17

requested and received a reduced work schedule and multiple

18

leaves of absence.

19

week and was absent from the hospital for long periods of time.

20

Because he was neither working full-time nor present in the

21

hospital, he was removed from the position of Chair of the

22

Pathology Department and his compensation was adjusted to that of

23

a staff pathologist without departmental administrative

24

responsibilities.

25

8.

He frequently worked only one or two days a

Management at Kern Medical Center counseled Plaintiff

26

about his anger and confrontational style but Plaintiff was not

27

receptive to the counseling and the work environment continued to

28

deteriorate.

Plaintiff was finally placed on paid administrative 4

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 29

Filed 06/06/2007

Page 5 of 19

1

leave in an effort to allow the work environment to stabilize.

2

IV.

3

Orders Re Amendments To Pleadings. 1.

Plaintiff intends to file a Second Supplemental

4

Complaint to include allegations of continuing discrimination and

5

retaliation that occurred after April 24, 2007.

6

insert the following:

7

Plaintiff that he will remain on paid administrative leave until

8

his contract expires on October 4, 2007; and that, contrary to

9

its prior and customary practice, Defendant County does not

Plaintiff will

On May 1, 2007, Defendant County notified

10

intend to renew his employment contract.

11

no longer restricted to the confines of his home during working

12

hours, he still may not enter KMC’s premises or access his office

13

without prior written permission.

14

paragraphs will be adjusted accordingly.

15

provided Defendants with the draft Second Supplemental Complaint

16

in the form in which Plaintiff intends to file it for Defendants’

17

prior review.

18

supplemental complaint on or before June 14, 2007.

19

2.

Although Plaintiff is

The numbering of the following Plaintiff has already

Plaintiff is hereby ORDERED to file any

Defendants intend to file an Amended Answer that (i)

20

with regard to the third affirmative defense, alleges the

21

specific privileges and immunities relied on with greater

22

particularity, (ii) with regard to the fourth affirmative

23

defense, alleges the specific provisions of Cal. Civ. Code § 47

24

relied on with greater particularity, and (iii) alleges the ninth

25

affirmative defense (qualified immunity) with greater

26

particularity, as well as additional non-material changes.

27

Defendants have already provided Plaintiff with the draft Amended

28

Answer in the form in which Defendants intend to file it for 5

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 29

Filed 06/06/2007

Page 6 of 19

1

Plaintiff’s prior review.

2

their response to the supplemental complaint on or before June

3

24, 2007.

4

3.

Defendants are hereby ORDERED to file

Based on the foregoing, each of the parties hereby

5

stipulates to the filing of the other’s supplemented/amended

6

pleadings and hereby respectfully request the order of the Court

7

granting the parties leave to file their respective

8

amended/supplemented pleadings.

9

4.

It should be noted that Plaintiff intends to file a

10

motion to strike certain of Defendants’ affirmative defenses

11

contained in the Amended Answer proposed to be filed as having

12

insufficient bases in law.

13

conferred regarding the affirmative defenses at issue but have

14

not been able to reach a resolution.

15

5.

The parties have already met and

Defendants wish to assert, based upon a new Supreme

16

Court decision issued May 30, 2007, the defense of the statute of

17

limitations, if applicable.

18

V.

Factual Summary.

19

A.

Admitted Facts Which Are Deemed Proven Without Further

20

Proceedings.

21

1.

At all material times, Defendant Kern County was a

22

local public entity within the meaning of sections 811.2 and

23

900.4 of the Government Code and is operating in Kern County,

24

California.

25

2.

During the entire course of Plaintiff’s

26

employment, Defendant Kern County has continuously been an

27

employer within the meaning of FMLA [29 C.F.R. § 825.105(C)],

28

CFRA [Gov’t Code § 12945.2(b)(2)] FEHA (Gov’t Code § 12926(d)], 6

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 29

Filed 06/06/2007

Page 7 of 19

1

and FLSA [29 U.S.C. § 203] engaged in interstate commerce, and

2

regularly employing more than fifty employees within seventy-five

3

miles of Plaintiff’s workplace.

4

3.

Defendant Bryan was Chief Executive Officer of KMC

5

and a resident of California during most of the time alleged in

6

the Complaint.

7

4.

At all material times, Defendant Eugene Kercher

8

was a citizen of California, a resident of Kern County,

9

California, and President of KMC Medical Staff, and a member of

10

the KMC Joint Conference Committee (“JCC”).

11

5.

At all material times, Defendant Irwin Harris was

12

a citizen of California, and a resident of Kern County,

13

California, and Chief Medical Officer at KMC, and a non-voting

14

member of the JCC.

15

6.

At all material times, Defendant Jennifer Abraham

16

was a citizen of California, and a resident of Kern County,

17

California and Immediate Past President of KMC Medical Staff.

18

7.

At all material times, Defendant Scott Ragland was

19

a citizen of California, and a resident of Kern County,

20

California, President-Elect of KMC Medical Staff, and a member of

21

the JCC.

22

8.

At all material times, Defendant Toni Smith was a

23

citizen of California, and a resident of Kern County, California,

24

and Chief Nurse Executive of KMC, and a member of the JCC.

25

9.

At all material times, Defendant William Roy was a

26

citizen of California, and a resident of Kern County, California

27

and Chief of the division of Gynecologic Oncology at KMC.

28

10.

Plaintiff has continuously been an employee of 7

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

1 2

Document 29

Filed 06/06/2007

Page 8 of 19

Defendant Kern County since October 24, 2000. 11.

Plaintiff is a pathologist whom Defendant County

3

hired as a pathologist at KMC and appointed to the position of

4

Chair of the Pathology Department.

5

12.

Plaintiff was compensated and provided with

6

certain benefits pursuant to a written employment agreement, the

7

terms of which speak for themselves.

8

13.

9

salary level at Step C.

10

14.

Defendant Kern County placed Plaintiff’s initial

Defendant expected Plaintiff to be an effective

11

member of the physicians’ staff at KMC and to contribute to the

12

overall improvement of the hospital.

13

15.

Plaintiff requested and received leaves of absence

14

and reduced work schedules, the terms and conditions of and

15

reasons for which are memorialized in writings that speak for

16

themselves.

17

16.

Plaintiff’s former attorney sent a letter to Kern

18

County Counsel Bernard Barmann and Mr. Barmann met with Plaintiff

19

on or about February 9, 2006.

20

17.

Defendant Bryan and Plaintiff exchanged written

21

communications regarding Plaintiff’s reduced work schedule and

22

requests for leaves of absence.

23

Bryan and others to discuss those subjects.

24

18.

Plaintiff met with Defendant

Defendant Bryan and Plaintiff exchanged written

25

correspondence regarding Plaintiff’s tenure and performance as

26

Chair of the Pathology Department at KMC.

27

for themselves.

28

19.

All the writings speak

On or about July 10, 2006, the JCC voted to remove 8

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 29

Filed 06/06/2007

Page 9 of 19

1

Plaintiff from his position as Chair of the Pathology Department

2

at Kern Medical Center.

3

20.

Plaintiff was removed from his position as Chair

4

of the Pathology Department in part because he was neither

5

working full-time nor present in the hospital.

6 7

21.

employment agreement to reduce Plaintiff’s base compensation.

8 9

22.

Defendant County appointed Dr. Philip Dutt Acting

Chair of the Pathology Department.

10 11

Defendant County subsequently amended Plaintiff’s

23.

Plaintiff returned to work as a staff pathologist

at KMC on October 4, 2006.

12

24.

Plaintiff exchanged written correspondence with

13

KMC Interim CEO David Culberson and those writings speak for

14

themselves.

15 16

25.

Defendant Kern County placed Plaintiff on paid

administrative leave, which continues to this date.

17

26.

Defendant County has provided Plaintiff with the

18

information he requested from the computer that had been

19

previously assigned to him.

20 21

27.

Plaintiff filed a claim with Defendant Kern County

and the claim was rejected.

22

28.

23

were under color of law.

24 25

B.

Any acts or omissions of the individual Defendants

Contested Facts. 1.

Defendants contest all allegations and averments

26

in the First Supplemented Complaint other than those enumerated

27

in Section A, Uncontested Facts.

28

2.

Plaintiff contests Defendants’ averment that 9

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 29

Filed 06/06/2007

Page 10 of 19

1

Plaintiff disrupted the October, 2005, Monthly Oncology

2

Conference and prevented appropriate discussion of case

3

management and that other physicians at Kern Medical Center,

4

including some of the Defendants, were concerned about

5

Plaintiff’s conduct and with his interference with patient care.

6

3.

Plaintiff contests all averments contained in the

7

Anser to the First Supplemented Complaint other than those stated

8

in Section A, Uncontested Facts.

9

VI.

10

Legal Issues. A.

Uncontested.

11

1.

Jurisdiction is disputed.

12

2.

Venue, if jurisdiction exists, is proper under 28

13

U.S.C. § 1392.

14

3.

If jurisdiction is present, the parties agree that

15

the substantive law of the State of California provides the rule

16

of decision for supplemental claims.

17 18

B.

Contested. 1.

Whether this Court has or should exercise

19

supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state claims pursuant

20

to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

21

2.

Whether Defendant Kern County violated Cal. Health

22

& Safety Code § 1278.5, entitling Plaintiff to damages for

23

retaliation for reporting his concerns about the health and

24

safety of patients.

25

3.

Whether Defendant Kern County violated Cal. Lab.

26

Code § 1102.5, entitling Plaintiff to damages for retaliation

27

against him for reporting suspected illegal acts.

28

4.

Whether Defendant Kern County violated Cal. Gov’t 10

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 29

Filed 06/06/2007

Page 11 of 19

1

Code §§ 12945.1, et seq., and 2 C.C.R. § 7297.7(a), entitling

2

Plaintiff to damages for retaliation for exercising his right to

3

CFRA medical leave.

4

5.

Whether Defendants Kern County and Bryan violated

5

29 U.S.C. §§ 2601, et seq., entitling Plaintiff to damages for

6

interference with his FMLA rights.

7

6.

Whether Defendant Kern County violated Cal. Gov’t

8

Code §§ 12945.1, et seq., entitling Plaintiff to damages for

9

violation of CFRA rights.

10

7.

Whether Defendant Kern County violated Cal. Gov’t

11

Code § 12940(a) entitling Plaintiff to damages for disability

12

discrimination.

13

8.

Whether Defendant Kern County violated Cal. Gov’t

14

Code § 12940(m) entitling Plaintiff to damages for failure to

15

provide reasonable accommodation, and an injunction requiring

16

compliance.

17

9.

Whether Defendant Kern County violated Cal. Gov’t

18

Code § 12940(n) entitling Plaintiff to damages and injunctive

19

relief for failure to engage in good faith in an interactive

20

process, and an injunction requiring compliance.

21

10.

Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, whether Defendants

22

Bryan, Kercher, Ragland, Abraham, and Smith, both personally and

23

in their respective official capacities, violated the 14th

24

Amendment of the U.S. Constitution entitling Plaintiff to damages

25

and injunctive relief for procedural due process violations.

26

11.

Whether Defendants Kern County, Roy, and Harris

27

violated Cal. Civ. Code §§ 45-47 entitling Plaintiff for damages

28

for defamation. 11

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

1

12.

Document 29

Filed 06/06/2007

Page 12 of 19

Whether Defendant Kern County violated 29 U.S.C.

2

§ 201 et seq., entitling Plaintiff to damages for wages lost

3

during periods when he was ready, willing, and able to work, but

4

was denied reduced scheduled medical leave, and forced to take

5

full time leave; and an injunction requiring compliance.

6

VII. Consent to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction.

7

1.

The parties have not consented to transfer the

8

case to the Magistrate Judge for all purposes, including trial.

9

VIII.

10

1.

Corporate Identification Statement. Any nongovernmental corporate party to any action in

11

this court shall file a statement identifying all its parent

12

corporations and listing any entity that owns 10% or more of the

13

party's equity securities.

14

its initial pleading filed in this court and shall supplement the

15

statement within a reasonable time of any change in the

16

information.

17

IX.

18 19 20 21 22

A party shall file the statement with

Discovery Plan and Cut-Off Date. 1.

The parties are ordered to file their Rule 26(a)(1)

initial disclosures on or before August 6, 2007. 2.

The parties are ordered to complete all discovery on

or before April 4, 2008. 3.

The parties are directed to disclose all expert

23

witnesses, in writing, on or before February 4, 2008.

Any

24

rebuttal or supplemental expert disclosures will be made on or

25

before March 4, 2008.

26

provisions of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a) regarding

27

their expert designations.

28

the written designation of experts shall be made pursuant to F.

The parties will comply with the

Local Rule 16-240(a) notwithstanding,

12

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 29

Filed 06/06/2007

Page 13 of 19

1

R. Civ. P. Rule 26(a)(2), (A) and (B) and shall include all

2

information required thereunder.

3

compliance with this order may result in the Court excluding the

4

testimony or other evidence offered through such experts that are

5

not disclosed pursuant to this order.

6

4.

Failure to designate experts in

The provisions of F. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4) shall

7

apply to all discovery relating to experts and their opinions.

8

Experts may be fully prepared to be examined on all subjects and

9

opinions included in the designation.

10 11

Failure to comply will

result in the imposition of sanctions. 5.

Confidentiality Orders.

Documents to be produced

12

include patient medical records that contain confidential patient

13

health care information, medical peer review records that are

14

confidential pursuant to California Evidence Code § 1157, some

15

documents that are protected by the attorney/client privilege and

16

some documents that include attorney work-product and trial

17

preparation materials.

18

confidential patient information before producing any patient

19

records and will do so.

20

Defendants’ production of certain specified peer review records

21

without redaction shall not be construed as a waiver of the peer

22

review privilege in general or a waiver with regard to any other

23

documents or person.

24

production of certain specified relevant memos and e-mails that

25

were sent to legal counsel for the County of Kern, as well as

26

other, non-lawyer, County employees, shall not be construed as a

27

waiver of the attorney/client privilege.

28

agree that Defendants’ production of certain specified documents

The Defendants are required to redact all

The parties hereby agree that

The parties hereby agree that Defendants’

13

The parties hereby

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 29

Filed 06/06/2007

Page 14 of 19

1

that include attorney work-product and trial preparation

2

materials shall not constitute a waiver of either the work-

3

product or trial preparation materials privileges as to any other

4

materials.

5

6.

The parties hereby agree that, in order to preserve the

6

confidentiality required for continued effective treatment of

7

Plaintiff’s depression, anxiety, insomnia, and emotional

8

distress, Plaintiff’s treating psychiatrists/psychologists shall

9

not be required to produce their actual treatment notes, but

10

instead shall produce a summary of their treatment of Plaintiff’s

11

depression and emotional distress, including their diagnoses and

12

prognoses, and the basis for their opinion, including raw data of

13

any psychological testing.

14

psychological examination by Defendants’ qualified expert

15

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 34 subject to a

16

stipulation regarding the timing and scope of the examination,

17

including the specific tests to be performed, and prompt

18

production of the subsequent report and raw data supporting the

19

report to all parties.

20

7.

Plaintiff is willing to undergo

The parties are not presently aware of any other issues

21

relating to claims of privilege or of protection as trial-

22

preparation material.

23

8.

Changes in Limitations on Discovery.

Given the number

24

of Defendants and witnesses and the number and complexity of the

25

issues, Plaintiff anticipates needing relief from the discovery

26

limitations of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2)(A) (10

27

depositions per side) and Rule 33(a) (no more than 25

28

interrogatories per party).

Defendants do not object to granting 14

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 29

Filed 06/06/2007

Page 15 of 19

1

Plaintiff relief from that limitation.

2

that the deposition of the Plaintiff will take up to 21 hours

3

because of the quantity of material that needs to be covered.

4

Defendants therefore request relief from FRCP 30(d)(2), (one day

5

of 7 hours per deposition).

6

Defendants’ request; provided, however, that no single day of

7

Plaintiff’s deposition shall exceed 7 hours.

8

presently aware of a need to change any other limitations on

9

discovery.

10

X.

11

Defendants anticipate

Plaintiff does not object to

The parties are not

Pre-Trial Motion Schedule. 1.

All Non-Dispositive Pre-Trial Motions, including any

12

discovery motions, will be filed on or before April 21, 2008, and

13

heard on May 23, 2008, at 9:00 a.m. before Magistrate Judge

14

Theresa A. Goldner in Courtroom 8.

15

2.

In scheduling such motions, the Magistrate

16

Judge may grant applications for an order shortening time

17

pursuant to Local Rule 142(d).

18

obtain an order shortening time, the notice of motion must comply

19

with Local Rule 251.

20

3.

However, if counsel does not

All Dispositive Pre-Trial Motions are to be

21

filed no later than May 5, 2008, and will be heard on June 9,

22

2008, at 10:00 a.m. before the Honorable Oliver W. Wanger, United

23

States District Judge, in Courtroom 3, 7th Floor.

24

such motions, counsel shall comply with Local Rule 230.

25

XI.

26

In scheduling

Pre-Trial Conference Date. 1.

July 14, 2008, at 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom 3, 7th Floor,

27

before the Honorable Oliver W. Wanger, United States District

28

Judge. 15

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

1 2 3

2.

Document 29

Filed 06/06/2007

Page 16 of 19

The parties are ordered to file a Joint Pre-

Trial Statement pursuant to Local Rule 281(a)(2). 3.

Counsel's attention is directed to Rules 281

4

and 282 of the Local Rules of Practice for the Eastern District

5

of California, as to the obligations of counsel in preparing for

6

the pre-trial conference.

7

compliance with those rules.

8

XII. Trial Date.

9

1.

The Court will insist upon strict

August 26, 2008, at the hour of 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom

10

3, 7th Floor, before the Honorable Oliver W. Wanger, United

11

States District Judge.

12

2.

This is a jury trial.

13

3.

Counsels' Estimate Of Trial Time:

14 15

a. 4.

14 days.

Counsels' attention is directed to Local Rules

16

of Practice for the Eastern District of California, Rule 285.

17

XIII.

18

1.

Settlement Conference. A Settlement Conference is scheduled for February 6,

19

2008, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 8 before the Honorable Theresa

20

A. Goldner, United States Magistrate Judge.

21

2.

Unless otherwise permitted in advance by the

22

Court, the attorneys who will try the case shall appear at the

23

Settlement Conference with the parties and the person or persons

24

having full authority to negotiate and settle the case on any

25

terms at the conference.

26

3.

Permission for a party [not attorney] to attend

27

by telephone may be granted upon request, by letter, with a copy

28

to the other parties, if the party [not attorney] lives and works 16

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 29

Filed 06/06/2007

Page 17 of 19

1

outside the Eastern District of California, and attendance in

2

person would constitute a hardship.

3

allowed, the party must be immediately available throughout the

4

conference until excused regardless of time zone differences.

5

Any other special arrangements desired in cases where settlement

6

authority rests with a governing body, shall also be proposed in

7

advance by letter copied to all other parties.

8 9

4.

If telephone attendance is

Confidential Settlement Conference Statement.

At least five (5) days prior to the Settlement Conference the

10

parties shall submit, directly to the Magistrate Judge's

11

chambers, a confidential settlement conference statement.

12

statement should not be filed with the Clerk of the Court nor

13

served on any other party.

14

marked "confidential" with the date and time of the Settlement

15

Conference indicated prominently thereon.

16

request the return of their statements if settlement is not

17

achieved and if such a request is not made the Court will dispose

18

of the statement.

19 20

5.

23

Each statement shall be clearly

Counsel are urged to

The Confidential Settlement Conference

Statement shall include the following:

21 22

The

a.

A brief statement of the facts of the

b.

A brief statement of the claims and

case.

24

defenses, i.e., statutory or other grounds upon which the claims

25

are founded; a forthright evaluation of the parties' likelihood

26

of prevailing on the claims and defenses; and a description of

27

the major issues in dispute.

28

c.

A summary of the proceedings to date. 17

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

1 2

d.

Document 29

Filed 06/06/2007

Page 18 of 19

An estimate of the cost and time to be

expended for further discovery, pre-trial and trial.

3

e.

The relief sought.

4

f.

The parties' position on settlement,

5

including present demands and offers and a history of past

6

settlement discussions, offers and demands.

7

XIV. Request For Bifurcation, Appointment Of Special Master,

8

Or Other Techniques To Shorten Trial.

9 10 11 12 13

1. XV.

None.

Related Matters Pending. 1.

There are no related matters.

XVI. Compliance With Federal Procedure. 1.

The Court requires compliance with the Federal

14

Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of Practice for the

15

Eastern District of California.

16

efficient administration of this case, all counsel are directed

17

to familiarize themselves with the Federal Rules of Civil

18

Procedure and the Local Rules of Practice of the Eastern District

19

of California, and keep abreast of any amendments thereto.

20

XVII.

21

1.

To aid the court in the

Effect Of This Order. The foregoing order represents the best

22

estimate of the court and counsel as to the agenda most suitable

23

to bring this case to resolution.

24

specifically reserved for this case.

25

any time that the schedule outlined in this order cannot be met,

26

counsel are ordered to notify the court immediately of that fact

27

so that adjustments may be made, either by stipulation or by

28

subsequent scheduling conference. 18

The trial date reserved is If the parties determine at

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

1

2.

Document 29

Filed 06/06/2007

Page 19 of 19

Stipulations extending the deadlines contained

2

herein will not be considered unless they are accompanied by

3

affidavits or declarations, and where appropriate attached

4

exhibits, which establish good cause for granting the relief

5

requested.

6 7

3.

Failure to comply with this order may result in

the imposition of sanctions.

8 9 10

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: May 31, 2007 emm0d6

/s/ Oliver W. Wanger UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 19