Free Joint Case Management Statement - District Court of California - California

Case 3:07-cv-05072-TEH

Document 21

Filed 01/21/2008

Page 1 of 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

CHARLES F. BOURDON, State Bar #84782 Law Offices of Charles F. Bourdon 179 - 11th Street, 2nd Floor San Francisco, CA 94103 415-864-5100 415-865-0376 (fax) BARON J. DREXEL, State Bar #132529 Law Offices of Baron J. Drexel 212 Ninth Street, Suite 401 Oakland, CA 94607 510-444-3184 (phone) 510-444-3181 (fax) Attorneys for Plaintiff MARK A. JONES, State Bar #96494 KRISTEN K. PRESTON, State Bar #125455 JONES & DYER A Professional Corporation 1800 J Street Sacramento, California 95811 Telephone: (916) 552-5959 Fax: (916) 442-5959 Attorneys for: Defendants County of Lake, County of Lake Sheriff's Department and Sheriff Rodney Mitchell

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION BRENT BECKWAY, Plaintiff , vs. DEPUTY PAUL DESHONG, DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, SHERIFF RODNEY K. MITCHELL, COUNTY OF LAKE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT and COUNTY OF LAKE, Defendants. _________________________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) NO. C 07 5072 THE JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT Date: Time: Location: Judge: January 28, 2008 1:30 p.m. Courtroom 12, 19th Floor Hon. Thelton E. Henderson

This Joint Statement is submitted by Counsel for Plaintiff and Counsel for Defendants 26 Sheriff Rodney K. Mitchell, County of Lake Sheriff's Department and County of Lake. We 27 understand that defense counsel for Deputy Paul Deshong has been away. In order to meet the 28
JO IN T C A SE M A N AG EM EN T STA TEM EN T

CASE NO. C-07-5072 THE
A :\L O B J D \C I V I L C L I E N T S \B E C K W A Y \fin a l d ra ft c m c 1 .2 1 .w p d

Case 3:07-cv-05072-TEH

Document 21

Filed 01/21/2008

Page 2 of 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Court's deadline, these parties file this Joint Case Management Statement. 1. Jurisdiction and Service: No issues exist with regard to jurisdiction or service except that there remains a defendant who was not named in the complaint. (There were two officers who detained plaintiff when he was injured and taken to the hospital. Deputy Richard Ward was not named. Plaintiff had made 6 requests to obtain the police report which identified his name but was just given the police report which identifies his name at a criminal arraignment that just occurred.) Plaintiff requests that the

court grant leave to amend so that plaintiff can name Richard Ward as one of the Doe defendants. 2. Facts: Plaintiff's Statement: On 10/27/06 at approximately 7:00 p.m., Deputy Paul Deshong went to the residence of one Mr. Keats on a report of an assault. At the time, Mr. Keats lived at 10477 Redwood Road, Loch Lomond. Mr. Keats described an argument he had with Mr. Beckway at the Loch Lomond Market. Deputy Deshong claims that while at Keats' residence he overheard a male leaving a message. The caller was on Keat's telephone yelling various threats to Keats and his friends. Deputy Deshong also claims that he was told by Keats that Beckway made it known to the neighborhood that he owned guns. Deputy Deshong reports that he left Keat's residence and went to the Loch Lomond Market and contacted two witnesses: one said she saw plaintiff strike Keats, the other witness did not see the strike. Deputy Deshong requested Deputy Richard Ward to respond as a cover unit "given Beckway's obvious intoxication level and state of mind when he left the message on Keat's answering machine." Deshong reports that an hour later he contacted Beckway through Beckway's screen door and smelled a strong odor of alcohol. He says Beckway walked on to the deck. Deshong states that Beckway denied striking Keats and that he told Beckway that Beckway "was under arrest." Beckway maintains that he was never told he was under arrest, that he spoke calmly and in a relaxed fashion. Deshong reports that he then "attempted to take control of Beckway's right arm to place

JO IN T C A SE M A N AG EM EN T STA TEM EN T

CASE NO. C-07-5072 THE
A :\L O B J D \C I V I L C L I E N T S \B E C K W A Y \fin a l d ra ft c m c 1 .2 1 .w p d

Case 3:07-cv-05072-TEH

Document 21

Filed 01/21/2008

Page 3 of 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

him into custody," that Beckway spun around to gain physical advantage, and freed himself from Deshong's "grasp" whereupon he lost his balance and fell to the deck. Deshong claims that Beckway fell forward and had his arms and hands under his torso. Deshong then reports that he and Deputy Ward took control of Beckway's arms and gained control of his hands by placing Beckway in handcuffs. Beckway maintains that the officers threw him down, face down and that one of the deputies grabbed on to his arms while he was down and the other proceeded to spread his legs and drop his knees on top of the back of Beckway's legs. Deshong reports that they assisted Beckway to his feet whereupon Beckway complained of pain to left leg. Deshong says he contacted medical personnel who responded to the request. An ambulance took Beckway to the hospital. While there, Deshong reports that he gave Beckway a "LCSO Form #38 [Detention only form] to Beckway as his treatment was going to be prolonged." Deshong says Beckway read the form, understood it, but felt obligated not to sign it as he did not have glasses to read the form. Beckway maintains he was handcuffed in the hospital room, kept under watch for two to three hours and during this time Deshong came into the room and apologized as he gave him the "Detention only" form. Beckway sustained a medial plateau fracture. No arrest was made until months after Beckway filed a government claim which was months after the attack and deterntion. Defendants' Statement: On October 27, 2006, the Lake County Sheriff's Department was summoned by an individual complaining of an altercation initiated by Brent Beckway. This individual complained that Beckway struck him in the face causing injury to him. Witnesses to the altercation identified Beckway as the aggressor. The complainant also played a telephone message recording from Beckway wherein Beckway was exhibiting signs of intoxication and using threatening language against the complainant. On the basis of the complaint, witness statements and recording, officers of the Lake County Sheriff's Department went to the home of Beckway and encountered Beckway there who was then exhibiting signs of extreme intoxication, including combative behavior. Beckway was informed that

JO IN T C A SE M A N AG EM EN T STA TEM EN T

CASE NO. C-07-5072 THE
A :\L O B J D \C I V I L C L I E N T S \B E C K W A Y \fin a l d ra ft c m c 1 .2 1 .w p d

Case 3:07-cv-05072-TEH

Document 21

Filed 01/21/2008

Page 4 of 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

he was being placed under arrest at which time Beckway resisted, pulling and spinning away from the officers. Beckway fell to the ground. The officers were able to gain control of Beckway and placed him under arrest. An audio recording of the officers' interaction with Beckway and the arrest was made. At that time, Beckway complained of pain to his left leg and medical personnel were summoned to attend to him. Beckway was transported to a local hospital for treatment. 3. Legal Issues: Plaintiff's complaint alleges several causes of action. The first cause of action for "42 U.S.C. 1983", alleges unreasonable and excessive use of force, deliberate indifference "to [plaintiff's] constitutional rights", and Monell claims. The second, third, fourth fifth and sixth causes of action pertain to state claims for battery, false arrest and "illegal imprisonment", negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligent infliction of emotional distress. Defendants generally and specifically deny plaintiff's allegations. Defendants contend that probable cause existed and the arrest of plaintiff for a violations of the California Penal Code was lawful. Defendants contend that the force employed to effect plaintiff's arrest was objectively reasonable. Defendants contend that the detention of plaintiff was lawful and that, during the period of his detention, defendants were not deliberately indifferent to any serious medical need of plaintiff's. 4. Motions: No motions are currently pending. However, if the Court does not wish to take up the issue of the missing defendant at the CMC, plaintiff will file a motion for leave to name the Doe defendant. Defendants anticipate filing a dispositive motion. 5. Amendment of Pleadings: As noted above, plaintiff seeks leave to amend complaint to name a defendant sued herein fictiously as a Doe defendant. 6. Evidence Preservation: Plaintiff has learned from a police report which was held until recently (plaintiff requested it

JO IN T C A SE M A N AG EM EN T STA TEM EN T

CASE NO. C-07-5072 THE
A :\L O B J D \C I V I L C L I E N T S \B E C K W A Y \fin a l d ra ft c m c 1 .2 1 .w p d

Case 3:07-cv-05072-TEH

Document 21

Filed 01/21/2008

Page 5 of 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

six times) that there is a tape recording and video tape of plaintiff. Plaintiff seeks a copy of this evidence immediately so that if it is lost or misplaced plaintiff will have copies. 7. Disclosures: All parties intend to make a full and timely initial disclosure of witnesses and documents as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26. By agreement, all parties will make an initial disclosure no later than January 23, 2008. 8. Discovery: The parties submit that discovery should proceed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 and 29-37. The parties do not believe that a Rule 26(f) discovery conference is necessary in this matter, and the parties should simply proceed with initial disclosures. 9. Class Actions: Not applicable. 10. Related Cases: The parties are unaware of any other case related to the instant matter. 11. Relief: Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages. 12. Settlement and ADR: The parties have stipulated to Early Neutral Evaluation. 13. Consent to Magistrate Judge for All Purposes: The parties will consent to have a magistrate judge conduct all discovery matters. 14. Other References: The parties do not suggest that this case is suitable for any other reference. 15. Narrowing of Issues: The parties have not presently identified any issues that can be narrowed by agreement. 16. Expedited Schedule: Plaintiff believes this case should be tried within 6 to 8 months. Plaintiff's injuries have prevented him from work and doing things for himself which has created a financial hardship.

JO IN T C A SE M A N AG EM EN T STA TEM EN T

CASE NO. C-07-5072 THE
A :\L O B J D \C I V I L C L I E N T S \B E C K W A Y \fin a l d ra ft c m c 1 .2 1 .w p d

Case 3:07-cv-05072-TEH

Document 21

Filed 01/21/2008

Page 6 of 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

17. Scheduling: Plaintiff proposes the following cutoff dates: Expert witness disclosure and reports by August 25, 2008. Non-expert discovery completed by September 15, 2008. Expert discovery completed by October 1, 2008. All motions, except for motions for continuances, temporary restraining orders or other emergency applications, be filed by October 1, 2008. Pre-trial conference October 15, 2008 Trial: November 1, 2008. Defendants propose the following cutoff dates: Expert witness disclosure and reports by November 25, 2008. Non-expert discovery completed by September 23, 2008. Disclosure of experts and reports for experts intended solely for rebuttal on or before December 9, 2008. Expert discovery completed by December 23, 2008. All motions, except for motions for continuances, temporary restraining orders or other emergency applications, be filed by November 3, 2008. Pre-trial conference February 2, 2009. Trial: February 23, 2009. Mark Jones, defendants' trial counsel, has advised that he has a vacation scheduled in October 2008. Plaintiff is willing to accommodate Mr. Jones' vacation but is concerned about delaying the matter. 18: Trial: The parties request that this case be tried to a jury. Plaintiff anticipates the length of trial to be 9 to 12 days. Defendants anticipate the length of trial to be 5 days. 19. Disclosure of Non-Party Entities or Persons: Each party's Certificate of Interested Parties or Persons will be filed and, pursuant to Local

JO IN T C A SE M A N AG EM EN T STA TEM EN T

CASE NO. C-07-5072 THE
A :\L O B J D \C I V I L C L I E N T S \B E C K W A Y \fin a l d ra ft c m c 1 .2 1 .w p d

Case 3:07-cv-05072-TEH

Document 21

Filed 01/21/2008

Page 7 of 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Rule 3-16, provides: [Party] certifies that as of this date, other than the named parties, there is no such interest to report. 20. Other Matters: The parties submit that the information set forth above encompasses all of the matters which may be conducive to the just, efficient and economical determination of the action. Date: January 21, 2008 JONES & DYER By: /s/ Kristen Preston Kristen Preston Attorneys for Defendants County of Lake, County of Lake Sheriff's Department, and Sheriff Rodney Mitchell

8 9 10 11 12 13 By: 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Date: January 21, 2008

LAW OFFICES OF CHARLES F. BOURDON LAW OFFICES OF BARON J. DREXEL

/s/Baron J. Drexel Baron J. Drexel Attorney for Plaintiff

JO IN T C A SE M A N AG EM EN T STA TEM EN T

CASE NO. C-07-5072 THE
A :\L O B J D \C I V I L C L I E N T S \B E C K W A Y \fin a l d ra ft c m c 1 .2 1 .w p d