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.

Maddox v. City of Sandpoint

United States District Court, D. Idaho

September 13, 2016

DANA MADDOX on behalf of D. M. and D. M., and RAYMOND FOSTER on behalf of H. F., minor children and heirs of JEANETTA RILEY, deceased, and SHANE RILEY, an heir of JEANETTA RILEY, deceased, Plaintiffs,
v.
CITY OF SANDPOINT, a political subdivision of the State of Idaho, CITY OF SANDPOINT POLICE DEPARTMENT, a department of the City of Sandpoint, SKYLAR CARL ZIEGLER, in his individual and official capacity, MICHAEL HENRY VALENZUELA, in his individual and official capacity, COREY COON, in his individual and official capacity, JOHN or JANE DOE #1-10 Employees of the Sandpoint Police Department, Defendants. SHANE RILEY, an individual, and as Personal Representative, heir and husband to the deceased JEANETTA RILEY, and on behalf of their unborn child, Plaintiff,
v.
THE CITY OF SANDPOINT, a political subdivision of the State of Idaho, CITY OF SANDPOINT POLICE DEPARTMENT, a department of the City of Sandpoint, MICHAEL VALENZUELA, in his individual and official capacity, SKYLAR C. ZIEGLER, in his individual and official capacity, GARRET L. JOHNSON, in his individual and official capacity, COREY COON, in his individual and official capacity, JOHN or JANE DOES #1-10, Employees of the Sandpoint Police Department, and ROSEMARY BRINKMEIER and BONNER COUNTY GENERAL HOSPITAL, Defendants.

          CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER TRACK: (STANDARD)

          B. Lynn Winmill Chief Judge

         In accordance with the agreements reached in the telephone scheduling conference held between counsel and the Court on September 7, 2016, and to further the efficient administration of this matter, NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the following recitation of deadlines and procedures shall govern this litigation:

         1. Dispositive Motion Deadline: All dispositive motions shall be filed by May 29, 2017.[1] This deadline will not be extended even if you are having discovery disputes.

a. This is the critical event for case management and will dictate when the trial will be set.
b. As provided below, a trial setting conference will be scheduled immediately following resolution of all dispositive motions. To facilitate a prompt trial setting, I will make every effort to schedule oral argument within 60 days and issue a decision within 30 days after the oral argument. If a decision is not issued within this time frame, I invite inquiry from counsel as to the status of the decision.

         2. Amendment of Pleadings and Joinder of Parties: All motions to amend pleadings and join parties, except for allegations of punitive damages, shall be filed on or before November 7, 2016. This deadline shall only be extended for good cause shown.[2] All parties are entitled to know the claims and parties well-before trial rather than be forced to pursue or defend against a moving target. Although this deadline precedes the general discovery deadline, the parties are directed to send out all discovery requests that might relate to amendment or joinder enough in advance of this amendment and joinder deadline to obtain the responses needed to make an informed decision on amendment and joinder.

         3. Alternative Dispute Resolution Plan: The parties shall also file an ADR plan by December 7, 2016. The ADR plan must indicate the form of ADR that will be utilized and the date on which it will be conducted.

         4. Discovery Plan: The parties have filed a stipulated Discovery Plan (Dkt. 36) that the Court incorporates by reference herein and APPROVES as an Order of the Court.

         5. Early Resolution of Narrowing Issues: The parties shall meet and confer regarding a timeline for pretrial motions on the issues of qualified immunity and Monell liability, with the goal of securing an early determination on potentially dispositive issues. The Court strongly encourages these early motions to be filed within 60 days. The parties further agree to discuss the possibility of a phased discovery timeline, including: (1) early priority for issues bearing upon qualified immunity and Monell liability; (2) deferring discovery on damages until after the Court has ruled on any dispositive issues. On or before September 27, 2016, the parties shall provide the Court with a proposed agreement on these issues. If no agreement can be reached, the parties should contact Sarah Stellberg, the law clerk assigned to this case (whose contact information is set forth below), to facilitate mediation.

         6. Completion of Discovery: All discovery will be completed by April 28, 2017. This is a deadline for the completion of all discovery; it is not a deadline for discovery requests. Discovery requests must be made far enough in advance of this deadline to allow completion of the discovery by the deadline date. As noted above, the parties may, by stipulation, agree to defer some trial-related discovery until after I have ruled on any dispositive issues.

         7. Disclosure of Experts:

a. The Plaintiff shall disclose the experts intended to be called at trial on or before January 30, 2017.
b. The Defendant shall disclose the experts intended to be called at trial on or ...

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.