Free Case Management Statement - District Court of California - California

Case 3:07-cv-04992-TEH

Document 22

Filed 01/18/2008

Page 1 of 8

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 Telephone: (925) 827-3300 Attorney for Defendants, C. WILSON and BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT

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.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

CASE NO.: C 07-04992 TEH

DEFENDANTS' CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT [PROPOSED] Date: Time: Ctrm: January 28, 2008 1:30 p.m. 12, 19th Floor

Pursuant to Civil L.R. 16-8, lead counsel for the parties to this action have not prepared a Joint Case Management Statement, although there is agreement on virtually all discovery issues, for reasons set forth below. this Proposed Case BARTD requests that the court adopt Statement counsel as the initial C. Case

Management until new

Management

Order,

for

Officer

Wilson

formally assumes his defense.
1

This is expected within the next

DEFENDANTS' CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

1

Case 3:07-cv-04992-TEH

Document 22

Filed 01/18/2008

Page 2 of 8

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

few days; the Substitution of Attorneys has been prepared.

In

the alternative, BARTD respectfully request that this matter be continued until successor counsel may fully and knowledgeably participate. 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 the officer. Plaintiff's counsel has

agreed that it would make sense for all concerned to continue the Case Management Conference, so that Mr. Allen would have the opportunity to join in the preparation of a Joint Statement. We

advised plaintiff's counsel that the parties would be required to enter into a Stipulation to that effect; plaintiff's counsel declined. Thus, BARTD's Statement reflects primarily BARTD's

point of view. 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. He was advised by the station agent that William Odom had walked out of the emergency exit gate without processing a ticket. 640 (b)(1). This is in violation of Penal Code Section

The station agent called after Mr. Odom who simply

walked away from her. Officer Wilson responded to the scene, and observed Mr. Odom sitting on a bench. Mr. Odom explained that he did not have a
2

DEFENDANTS' CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

2

Case 3:07-cv-04992-TEH

Document 22

Filed 01/18/2008

Page 3 of 8

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

ticket nor money to pay for one.

The officer explained that Mr.

Odom was required to have a ticket at all times. When told by Mr. Odom that he had no identification, the officer attempted to search Mr. Odom for identification and any weapons. Mr. Odom refused to cooperate with the officer, even The officer attempted several

when told to "stop resisting".

maneuvers, including leg sweeps, and a distraction blow to the plaintiff's attempts, handcuffed. minimal neck to get was him taken to the ground. ground After where several he was

plaintiff

to

the

The officer leaned over the plaintiff, applying to the of plaintiff's the back and At neck the area, time, to the

pressure the

facilitate

placing

handcuffs.

officer believed that plaintiff was approximately 18 to 19 years old. 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; 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;
3

DEFENDANTS' CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

3

Case 3:07-cv-04992-TEH

Document 22

Filed 01/18/2008

Page 4 of 8

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

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

(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. 5. Amendment of Pleadings It is anticipated that when successor counsel for Officer Wilson appears, he may wish to amend the Answer and Affirmative Defenses which have been filed in his client's behalf. 6. Evidence Preservation Defendant BARTD will preserve any evidence relevant to the issues reasonably evidenced in this action. 7. A. Disclosures Defendants' Disclosure of Documents Defendant will provide plaintiff with a copy of the Police Report.
4

DEFENDANTS' CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

4

Case 3:07-cv-04992-TEH

Document 22

Filed 01/18/2008

Page 5 of 8

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

In order to promote judicial efficiency, plaintiff and defendants agree to a simultaneous, mutual exchange of all documents. The

parties will produce these initial documents pursuant to Rule 26(a)(1)(B) no later than thirty (30) days after the entry of this Order. B. Defendants' Disclosure of Witnesses 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 8. 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

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

appeared, and successor counsel will appear shortly. Defendant BARTD proposes the following discovery plan: 1. BARTD 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 may be deposed as well. 2. The parties agree that each side will depose up to ten

individuals, exclusive of expert witnesses. 3. An independent medical examination may be scheduled of

plaintiff.
5

DEFENDANTS' CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

5

Case 3:07-cv-04992-TEH

Document 22

Filed 01/18/2008

Page 6 of 8

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

4.

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

made as part of any deposition notice. 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 he was subdued and arrested by Officer Wilson. He also seeks damages for violation of his federal Damages should be

constitutional and rights under state law.

calculated, if awarded, on the basis of plaintiff's injuries,
6

DEFENDANTS' CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

6

Case 3:07-cv-04992-TEH

Document 22

Filed 01/18/2008

Page 7 of 8

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

which are diminimus.

If plaintiff alleges psychological injury,

damages should be restricted to only those issues which plaintiff can prove up as having been directly caused by the subject incident, and not broadly based "need for therapy". 12. Settlement and ADR Defendant BARTD is 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 declines 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 proposes the following: Trial Date: Pre-Trial : January, 2009 December 2008 October 2008

Expert discovery cutoff: Discovery cutoff: 18. Trial

September 2008

7

DEFENDANTS' CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

7

Case 3:07-cv-04992-TEH

Document 22

Filed 01/18/2008

Page 8 of 8

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

This case will be tried to a jury. 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 requests referral to early settlement discussions. DATED: January 17, 2008 EDRINGTON, SCHIRMER & MURPHY

By______________________________ PETER P. EDRINGTON, ESQ. Attorneys for Defendants BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT AND OFFICER C. WILSON

8

DEFENDANTS' CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

8