Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 19

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., ) 1:07-cv-0026 OWW TAG
)
10 Plaintiff, ) SCHEDULING CONFERENCE ORDER
)
11 v. ) Discovery Cut-Off: 4/4/08
)
12 COUNTY OF KERN, et al., ) Non-Dispositive Motion
) Filing Deadline: 4/21/08
13 Defendants. )
) Dispositive Motion Filing
14 ) Deadline: 5/5/08
15 Settlement Conference Date:
2/6/08 10:00 Ctrm. 8
16
Pre-Trial Conference
17 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. Date of Scheduling Conference.
22 May 31, 2007.
23 II. Appearances Of Counsel.
24 Eugene D. Lee, Esq., and Joan Harrington, Esq., appeared on
25 behalf of Plaintiff.
26 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 Document 29 Filed 06/06/2007 Page 2 of 19

1 III. Summary of Pleadings.


2 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. He

3
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. Plaintiff complained about procedures and policies
4 at Kern Medical Center and interfered with patient care through
5 obstructionist behavior and secretive practices. His pathology
6 reports were characterized by frequent mistakes, changes in
7 opinion and untimely service, all of which compromised patient
8 care. Disagreements arose between Plaintiff and many of the
9 other physicians at Kern Medical Center regarding Plaintiff’s
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. He frequently worked only one or two days a
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. 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. Orders Re Amendments To Pleadings.
3 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. Plaintiff will
6 insert the following: On May 1, 2007, Defendant County notified
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
10 intend to renew his employment contract. Although Plaintiff is
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. The numbering of the following
14 paragraphs will be adjusted accordingly. Plaintiff has already
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. Plaintiff is hereby ORDERED to file any
18 supplemental complaint on or before June 14, 2007.
19 2. 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. Defendants are hereby ORDERED to file


2 their response to the supplemental complaint on or before June
3 24, 2007.
4 3. 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. The parties have already met and
13 conferred regarding the affirmative defenses at issue but have
14 not been able to reach a resolution.
15 5. 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 Document 29 Filed 06/06/2007 Page 8 of 19

1 Defendant Kern County since October 24, 2000.


2 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. Defendant Kern County placed Plaintiff’s initial
9 salary level at Step C.
10 14. 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. Plaintiff met with Defendant
23 Bryan and others to discuss those subjects.
24 18. Defendant Bryan and Plaintiff exchanged written
25 correspondence regarding Plaintiff’s tenure and performance as
26 Chair of the Pathology Department at KMC. All the writings speak
27 for themselves.
28 19. 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 21. Defendant County subsequently amended Plaintiff’s
7 employment agreement to reduce Plaintiff’s base compensation.
8 22. Defendant County appointed Dr. Philip Dutt Acting
9 Chair of the Pathology Department.
10 23. Plaintiff returned to work as a staff pathologist
11 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 25. Defendant Kern County placed Plaintiff on paid
16 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 27. Plaintiff filed a claim with Defendant Kern County
21 and the claim was rejected.
22 28. Any acts or omissions of the individual Defendants
23 were under color of law.
24 B. Contested Facts.
25 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. Legal Issues.
10 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 B. Contested.
18 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 Document 29 Filed 06/06/2007 Page 12 of 19

1 12. 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. Corporate Identification Statement.
10 1. 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. A party shall file the statement with
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. Discovery Plan and Cut-Off Date.
18 1. The parties are ordered to file their Rule 26(a)(1)
19 initial disclosures on or before August 6, 2007.
20 2. The parties are ordered to complete all discovery on
21 or before April 4, 2008.
22 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. The parties will comply with the
26 provisions of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a) regarding
27 their expert designations. Local Rule 16-240(a) notwithstanding,
28 the written designation of experts shall be made pursuant to F.

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. Failure to designate experts in
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. 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. Failure to comply will
10 result in the imposition of sanctions.
11 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. The Defendants are required to redact all
18 confidential patient information before producing any patient
19 records and will do so. The parties hereby agree that
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. The parties hereby agree that Defendants’
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. The parties hereby
28 agree that Defendants’ production of certain specified documents

13
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. Plaintiff is willing to undergo
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. 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. Defendants anticipate


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). Plaintiff does not object to
6 Defendants’ request; provided, however, that no single day of
7 Plaintiff’s deposition shall exceed 7 hours. The parties are not
8 presently aware of a need to change any other limitations on
9 discovery.
10 X. Pre-Trial Motion Schedule.
11 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). However, if counsel does not
18 obtain an order shortening time, the notice of motion must comply
19 with Local Rule 251.
20 3. 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. In scheduling
24 such motions, counsel shall comply with Local Rule 230.
25 XI. Pre-Trial Conference Date.
26 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 Document 29 Filed 06/06/2007 Page 16 of 19

1 2. The parties are ordered to file a Joint Pre-


2 Trial Statement pursuant to Local Rule 281(a)(2).
3 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. The Court will insist upon strict
7 compliance with those rules.
8 XII. Trial Date.
9 1. 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 a. 14 days.
15 4. Counsels' attention is directed to Local Rules
16 of Practice for the Eastern District of California, Rule 285.
17 XIII. Settlement Conference.
18 1. 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. If telephone attendance is
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 4. Confidential Settlement Conference Statement.
9 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. The
12 statement should not be filed with the Clerk of the Court nor
13 served on any other party. Each statement shall be clearly
14 marked "confidential" with the date and time of the Settlement
15 Conference indicated prominently thereon. Counsel are urged to
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 5. The Confidential Settlement Conference
20 Statement shall include the following:
21 a. A brief statement of the facts of the
22 case.
23 b. A brief statement of the claims and
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 Document 29 Filed 06/06/2007 Page 18 of 19

1 d. An estimate of the cost and time to be


2 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 1. None.
10 XV. Related Matters Pending.
11 1. There are no related matters.
12 XVI. Compliance With Federal Procedure.
13 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. To aid the court in the
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. Effect Of This Order.
21 1. 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. The trial date reserved is
24 specifically reserved for this case. If the parties determine at
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
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 29 Filed 06/06/2007 Page 19 of 19

1 2. 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 3. Failure to comply with this order may result in
7 the imposition of sanctions.
8
9 IT IS SO ORDERED.
10 Dated: May 31, 2007 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger
emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

19

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi