Opinion
2:08-cv-00 922-GEB-KJN
08-26-2011
MACARIO BELEN DAGDAGAN, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF VALLEJO, VALLEJO OFFICER JOHN BOYD (ID# 589), VALLEJO OFFICER J. WENTZ (ID# 524), VALLEJO OFFICER JAMES MELVILLE, Defendants.
SUPPLEMENTAL STATUS (PRETRIAL SCHEDULING) ORDER
The status (pretrial scheduling) conference scheduled for hearing on August 29, 2011, is vacated since the parties' Joint Status Report filed on August 15, 2011 ("JSR") indicates the following Order should issue.
DISCOVERY
The discovery referenced in the JSR shall be completed by February 29, 2012. 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 orders, if necessary, and, where discovery has been ordered, the order has been complied with or, alternatively, the time allowed for such compliance shall have expired.
MOTION HEARING SCHEDULE
The last hearing date for motions previously deemed withdrawn shall be October 24, 2011, commencing at 9:00 a.m.
This time deadline does not apply to motions for continuances, temporary restraining orders, emergency applications, or motions under Rule 16(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Motions shall be filed in accordance with Local Rule 230(b). Opposition papers shall be filed in accordance with Local Rule 230(c). Failure to comply with this local rule may be deemed consent to the motion and the Court may dispose of the motion summarily. Brydges v. Lewis, 18 F.3d 651, 652-53 (9th Cir. 1994). Further, failure to timely oppose a summary judgment motion may result in the granting of that motion if the movant shifts the burden to the nonmovant to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact remains for trial. Cf. Marshall v. Gates, 44 F.3d 722 (9th Cir. 1995).
The parties are cautioned that an untimely motion characterized as a motion in limine may be summarily denied. A motion in limine addresses the admissibility of evidence.
FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE
The final pretrial conference is set for April 9, 2012, at 1:30 p.m. The parties are cautioned that the lead attorney who WILL TRY THE CASE for each party shall attend the final pretrial conference. In addition, all persons representing themselves and appearing in propria persona must attend the pretrial conference.
The parties are warned that non-trial worthy issues could be eliminated sua sponte "[i]f the pretrial conference discloses that no material facts are in dispute and that the undisputed facts entitle one of the parties to judgment as a matter of law." Portsmouth Square v. S'holders Protective Comm., 770 F.2d 866, 869 (9th Cir. 1985).
The parties shall file a JOINT pretrial statement no later than seven (7) calendar days prior to the final pretrial conference. The joint pretrial statement shall specify the issues for trial, including a description of each theory of liability and affirmative defense, and shall estimate the length of the trial. The Court uses the parties' joint pretrial statement to prepare its final pretrial order and could issue the final pretrial order without holding the scheduled final pretrial conference. See Mizwicki v. Helwig, 196 F.3d 828, 833 (7th Cir. 1999) ("There is no requirement that the court hold a pretrial conference.").
If a trial by jury has been preserved, the joint pretrial statement shall also state how much time each party desires for voir dire, opening statements, and closing arguments.
If possible, at the time of filing the joint pretrial statement counsel shall also email it in a format compatible with WordPerfect to: geborders@caed.uscourts.gov.
TRIAL SETTING
Trial shall commence at 9:00 a.m. on June 19, 2012.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.
United States District Judge