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

Case 3:07-cv-04992-TEH

Document 28

Filed 03/04/2008

Page 1 of 11

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

PETER P. EDRINGTON, ESQ. (Bar No. 074355) EDRINGTON, SCHIRMER & MURPHY 2300 Contra Costa Blvd., Ste 450 Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 T: (925) 827-3300 F: (925) 827-3320 Attorney for Defendant, BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT DALE L. ALLEN, JR. ESQ. (Bar No. 145279) LOW BALL & LYNCH 505 Montgomery Street, 7th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-2584 T: (415) 981-6630 F: (415) 982-1634 Attorney for Defendant, OFFICER C. WILSON Wayne Johnson, Esq. (Bar No. 112588) LAW OFFICES OF WAYNE JOHNSON P.O. Box 19157 Oakland, CA 94619 T: (510) 451-1166 Attorney for Plaintiff WILLIAM ODOM

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM ODOM, a minor, by and through his Guardian ad Litem, Roxanne Hendrix, Plaintiff, v. C. WILSON, individually, and in his capacity as an employee of Bay Area Rapid Transit District; BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT, AND DOES 110; PEACE OFFICERS WHOSE NAMES ARE UNKNOWN, Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
1

CASE NO.: C 07-04992 TEH

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT Date: Time: Ctrm: March 10, 2008 1:30 p.m. 12, 19th Floor

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

1

Case 3:07-cv-04992-TEH

Document 28

Filed 03/04/2008

Page 2 of 11

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

The parties to the above-captioned action jointly submit this Case Management Statement and Proposed Order and request the Court to adopt it as its Case Management Order in this case. This Case Management was continued to March 10, 2008, so that C. Wilson's attorney could substitute into the case. March 3, 2008, Dale Allen substituted into the case. On

As of

today, Plaintiff's attorney and Dale Allen have not had any discussions. An Answer has been filed on behalf of BARTD and Officer C. Wilson. retained Attorney Dale Allen of Low, Ball & Lynch has been to represent OFFICER WILSON. A Substitution of

Attorneys as to Officer C. WILSON was filed on March 3, 2008. Attorney Peter P. Edrington of Edrington, Schirmer & Murphy has been retained to represent BARTD. 1. Jurisdiction and Service The court has jurisdiction over plaintiff's claims under 42 USC 1983 and pendant state claims. 2. Facts On May 25, 2007, OFFICER WILSON was on uniform patrol at the Pittsburg BARTD Station. It is defendants' position that: he was advised by the station agent that William Odom had walked out of the emergency exit gate without processing a ticket. This is in violation of Penal Code Section 640 (b)(1). It is defendants' position that: The station agent called after Mr. Odom who

defendants claim simply walked away from her. //
2

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

2

Case 3:07-cv-04992-TEH

Document 28

Filed 03/04/2008

Page 3 of 11

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

It is plaintiff's position that:

William Odom states that

he explained to the station agent that he lost his ticket on the BART train and he believes she made a gesture that he interpreted as permission to proceed through the exit gate, so he did.

William Odom denies that he heard the station agent call out to him at any time. OFFICER WILSON responded to the scene, and it is Defendants' position that: He observed Mr. Odom sitting on a bench. plaintiff's position that: It is

Mr. Odom states that he was standing, Mr.

talking to his school friend who had ridden BART with him.

Odom explained that he did not have a ticket nor money to pay for one. It is plaintiff's position that: Williams Odom says he

told the officer he had purchased a BART ticket, that he fell asleep on the train, that he lost his ticket on the train ride, and that he would bring the money back after he got it from his mother. It is Defendants' position that: The officer explained that Mr. Odom was required to have a ticket at all times. plaintiff's position that: this statement. Plaintiff alleges that: William Odom told the officer he It is

William Odom denies the officer made

had no identification because he had forgotten his identification at school. When told by Mr. Odom that he had no identification, the officer attempted to search

it is Defendants' position that:

Mr. Odom for identification and any weapons. It is Defendants' position that: Mr. Odom refused to cooperate with the officer, even when told to "stop resisting". It is defendants' position
3

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

3

Case 3:07-cv-04992-TEH

Document 28

Filed 03/04/2008

Page 4 of 11

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

that: After several attempts, plaintiff was taken to the ground where he was handcuffed. It is defendants' position that: The officer leaned over the plaintiff, applying minimal pressure to the plaintiff's back and neck area, to facilitate the placing of the handcuffs. It is plaintiff's position that: William Odom denies that

Officer Wilson never failed to follow any of C. Wilson's requests or that C. Wilson told Plaintiff to "stop resisting." It is defendants' position that: The officer attempted

several maneuvers, including leg sweeps, and a distraction blow to the plaintiff's neck to get him to the ground. It is plaintiff's position that: William Odom says the When he

officer told him to turn around, and he complied.

verbally protested being searched over a BART ticket, Officer Wilson punched him in the face, knocking him to the ground. It is plaintiff's position that: resisted. comply. William Odom says he never

He states he was not given an opportunity to resist or Williams Odom states the officer applied maximum force,

including several blows to the head, body slam to the ground, and applied his knee to the head of William Odom, grinding his face into the concrete. It is defendants' position that: At the time, the officer believed that plaintiff was approximately 18 to 19 years old. It is Plaintiff's position that: looked 18 or 19. William Odom denies he

In fact, he believes he could have passed for a He was a child of 16 years, about 5-7,
4

child of younger than 16.

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

4

Case 3:07-cv-04992-TEH

Document 28

Filed 03/04/2008

Page 5 of 11

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

140 pounds, and who had no facial hair on the date of the incident. It is plaintiff position that: According to Roxanne

Hendrix, when asked by Roxanne Hendrix why he, C. Wilson, beat her son like that, his only response was: "because your son is a punk." 3. Legal Issues The principle legal issues that the parties dispute are: a. whether any constitutional right of plaintiff was violated under 42 USC 1983, i.e, freedom of speech or right to be free of excessive police searches and seizures; b. c. d. whether plaintiff violated Penal Code Section 640(b)(1); whether plaintiff violated Penal Code Section 148(a)(1); whether defendant is entitled to qualified immunity. See

Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001) and Anderson v. Creighton 483 U.S. 635, 640 (1987) and Boyd v. Benton Co. 374 F.3d 773, 781 (9th Cir. 2004); e. whether any liability may attach to BARTD under 42 USC 1983; f. whether Officer Wilson committed battery on plaintiff. See Ashcraft v. King, 228 Cal.App. 3d 604, 611 (1991); g. whether Officer Wilson falsely arrested and/or imprisoned plaintiff; h. whether plaintiff can recover punitive damages against a public entity. See City of Newport v. Fact Concerts

5

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

5

Case 3:07-cv-04992-TEH

Document 28

Filed 03/04/2008

Page 6 of 11

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

(1981) 453 U.S. 247 and California Government Code Section 818; i. j. whether plaintiff's arrest was lawful; whether Officer Wilson is entitled to immunity under state law for the state causes of action; k. whether Officer Wilson acted with malicious intent in arresting plaintiff; 4. Motions There are no pending motions. judgment/summary adjudication. BARTD may move for summary Unless defendants agree to

stipulate, plaintiffs will bring a motion for the discovery of previous claims against C. Wilson for excessive force, discrimination, and denials of free speech. 5. Amendment of Pleadings No amendment of pleadings is presently contemplated by defendants. 6. Evidence Preservation Defendant BARTD and Defendant WILSON will preserve any evidence relevant to the issues reasonably evidenced in this action. 7. A. Disclosures Defendants' Disclosure of Documents Defendant BARTD has provided plaintiff with a copy of the Police Report and copies of photographs. Plaintiff is seeking Plaintiff

copies of photographs mentioned in the police report.

will also seek copies of paramedic information from the
6

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

6

Case 3:07-cv-04992-TEH

Document 28

Filed 03/04/2008

Page 7 of 11

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

paramedics called by BARTD, when BARTD discloses the names of the paramedics called to the scene by BARTD. BARTD does not have that information. B. Defendants' Disclosure of Witnesses 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. C. Officer C. Wilson, BARTD Police Sergeant Macaulay, BARTD Police Officer K. Garner, BARTD Police BARTD Station Agent Debbie Ingram Officer W. Maloney, BARTD Police Lt. Conneely, BARTD Police Plaintiffs' Disclosure of Documents 1. 2. 3. D. Plaintiff has disclosed copies of photographs Plaintiff will disclose copies of Psychology records Plaintiff will disclose Kaiser Records

Witnesses 1. 2. 3. William Odom, Plaintiff Roxanne Hendrix, Mother of Plaintiff Darius Smith 5525 McBryde Avenue, Richmond, CA Apt. 1 94805 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Sgt. Macaulay, BARTD Police Officer Maloney, BARTD Police Lt. Conneely, BARTD Police Sgt. David Chebowski, BARTD Police Kweli Tutashinda, 3358 DC Adeline Street, Berkeley, CA

//
7

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

7

Case 3:07-cv-04992-TEH

Document 28

Filed 03/04/2008

Page 8 of 11

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

9.

Melvin P. Burman, Kaiser Permanente, 901 Nevin Avenue, Richmond, CA

8.

Discovery No discovery has taken place to date. BARTD has just

appeared, and counsel for OFFICER WILSON will appear shortly. Defendant BARTD and defendant OFFICER WILSON propose the following discovery plan: 1. Plaintiffs will depose Officer Wilson, BARTD, Sgt. Macaulay, Sgt. Chebowski, and Lt. Conneely. 2. BARTD and OFFICER WILSON will take the depositions of William Odom, Roxanne Hendrix, and other percipient and expert witnesses, including Darius Smith, the treating physician at Kaiser Hospital, Richmond, Kweli Tutashinda, and John T. Rouse, the custodian of records of Kaiser Foundational Hospital, Richmond CA; additional witnesses as yet unknown to BARTD and OFFICER WILSON may be deposed as well. 3. The parties agree that each side will depose up to ten

individuals, exclusive of expert witnesses. 4. An independent medical examination may be scheduled of

plaintiff. 5. The parties agree that a maximum number of twenty-five

(25) Interrogatories by each party to any other party shall be permitted, with responses made pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 6. The parties agree that a maximum number of twenty-five
8

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

8

Case 3:07-cv-04992-TEH

Document 28

Filed 03/04/2008

Page 9 of 11

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

(25) Requests for Admission by each party to any other party shall be permitted, with responses made pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 6. Defendants request that a maximum number of five

Requests for Production of Documents by each party to any other party shall be permitted, with responses made pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This limitation would include Plaintiff

requests made as part of any deposition notice. requests 35 requests for documents. 7.

Defendants request that the total number of discovery

requests shall not exceed fifty-five (55), and shall be propounded pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 9. Class Action This is not a class action suit. 10. Related Cases There are no related cases. 11. Relief Plaintiff is seeking recovery of money damages for injuries allegedly sustained when his Constitutional Rights were violated by Officer Wilson. He also seeks damages for violation of his Damages

federal constitutional and rights under state law.

should be calculated, if awarded, on the basis of plaintiff's injuries, which are diminimus, according to defendants. Plaintiff believes his injuries are substantial. If plaintiff

alleges psychological injury, damages should be restricted to only those issues which plaintiff can prove up as having been
9

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

9

Case 3:07-cv-04992-TEH

Document 28

Filed 03/04/2008

Page 10 of 11

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

directly caused by the subject incident, and not broadly based "need for therapy". 12. Settlement and ADR Defendant BARTD and defendant OFFICER WILSON are willing to proceed to a Magistrate Judge for a Settlement Conference as soon as such conference may be scheduled. 13. Consent to Magistrate Judge For All Purposes Defendant BARTD and defendant OFFICER WILSON decline to consent to a Magistrate Judge to conduct all further proceedings. 14. Other References N.A. 15. Narrowing of Issues Such issues are not evident at this time, but will certainly be explored through discovery and investigation. 16. Expedited Schedule This does not appear to be the kind of case that can be handled on an expedited basis. 17. Scheduling Defendant BARTD and Defendant OFFICER WILSON propose the following: Trial Date: Pre-Trial : February, 2009 January 2009 November 2008

Expert discovery cutoff: Discovery cutoff: 18. Trial

October 2008

This case will be tried to a jury.
10

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

10

Case 3:07-cv-04992-TEH

Document 28

Filed 03/04/2008

Page 11 of 11

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

19.

Disclosure of Non-party Interested Entities or Persons Neither party has filed a Certification of Interested

Entities or Persons, as none is yet evident. 20. Referral to Early Settlement Discussions Defendant BARTD and Defendant OFFICER WILSON request referral to early settlement discussions. DATED: February 28, 2008 EDRINGTON, SCHIRMER & MURPHY

By______________________________ PETER P. EDRINGTON, ESQ. Attorneys for Defendant BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT LOW BALL & LYNCH By________________________________ DALE L. ALLEN, JR., ESQ. Attorneys for Defendant OFFICER C. WILSON LAW OFFICES OF WAYNE JOHNSON

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

By_______________________________ WAYNE JOHNSON, ESQ. Attorney for Plaintiff CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER The Case Management Statement and Proposed Order is hereby adopted by the Court as the Case Management Order for the case and the parties are ordered to comply with this Order. DATED: March ___, 2008 ______________________________ THELTON E. HENDERSON U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
11

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

11