SCHEDULING CONFERENCE ORDER

ERICA P. GROSJEAN, Magistrate Judge.

This Court conducted an Initial Scheduling Conference on October 3, 2017. Claire Woods appeared telephonically on behalf of Plaintiffs. Nicole Smith and Bradley Oliphant appeared telephonically on behalf of defendants. William Sloan, Rebecca Sheehan, and Melinda Pilling appeared telephonically on behalf of Intervenor Defendants. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b), this Court sets a schedule for this action.

I. Amendments to The Parties' Pleadings

If plaintiffs are granted leave to file an amended complaint, Defendants shall have 30 days in which to answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiffs' amended complaint. Further, if Plaintiffs are granted leave to file an amended complaint, the parties shall meet and confer within 30 days regarding whether amendments to the schedule shall be necessary.

II. Consent To Magistrate Judge

The parties have not consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. Out of fairness, the Court believes it is necessary to forewarn litigants that the Fresno Division of the Eastern District of California now has the heaviest District Court Judge caseload in the entire nation. While the Court will use its best efforts to resolve this case and all other civil cases in a timely manner, the parties are advised that not all of the parties' needs and expectations may be met as expeditiously as desired. As multiple trials are now being set to begin upon the same date, parties may find their case trailing with little notice before the trial begins. The law requires that the Court give any criminal trial priority over civil trials or any other matter. The Court must proceed with a criminal trial even if a civil trial was filed earlier and set for trial first. Continuances of any civil trial under these circumstances will no longer be entertained, absent a specific and stated finding of good cause. All parties should be informed that any civil trial set to begin during the time a criminal trial is proceeding will trail the completion of the criminal trial.

The parties are reminded of the availability of United States Magistrate Judge Erica Grosjean to conduct all proceedings in this action. A United States Magistrate Judge is available to conduct trials, including entry of final judgment, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 73, and Local Rule 305. The same jury pool is used by both United States Magistrate Judges and United States District Court Judges. Any appeal from a judgment entered by a United States Magistrate Judge is taken directly to the United States Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit. However, the parties are hereby informed that no substantive rulings or decisions will be affected by whether a party chooses to consent.

Finally, the Fresno Division of the Eastern District of California, whenever possible, is utilizing United States Article III District Court Judges from throughout the nation as Visiting Judges. Pursuant to the Local Rules, Appendix A, reassignments will be random, and the parties will receive no advance notice before their case is reassigned to an Article III District Court Judge from outside of the Eastern District of California. Therefore, the parties are directed to consider consenting to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction to conduct all further proceedings, including trial.

III. Preparation of the Administrative Record

Defendants have agreed to prepare the administrative record in this case and lodge it with the Court. The deadlines relating to the preparation of the administrative record are:

IV. Dates for Filing Briefs

The Court set a briefing schedule for the parties to file cross-motions for summary judgment. All motions will be heard before United States District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill in Courtroom 4. The Court will advise the parties if a hearing on any motion is required after reviewing the briefing. Given the nature of this case, the parties are not required to submit a joint statement of undisputed facts when filing motions for summary judgment. However, prior to filing such motion, the parties are ordered to meet, in person or by telephone, and discuss the issues to be raised in the motion at least twenty-one days prior to filing the motion. The purpose of the meeting shall be to: 1) avoid filing motions for summary judgment where a question of fact exists; 2) determine whether the respondent agrees that the motion has merit in whole or in part; 3) discuss whether issues can be resolved without the necessity of briefing; 4) narrow the issues for review by the court; and 5) explore the possibility of settlement before the parties incur the expense of briefing a summary judgment motion. Each party shall have a page limit of 75 pages in briefing their motions for all combined briefing. Dates for the filing of briefs are outlined below:

V. Settlement Conference

A settlement conference has not been scheduled because the parties have indicated that settlement is unlikely. The parties may contact the Court if they determine that a settlement conference would be beneficial at any stage of the proceedings. Unless otherwise permitted in advance by the Court, the attorneys who will try the case shall appear at the Settlement Conference. Additionally, the parties and the person or persons having full authority to negotiate and settle the case on any terms must be present at the conference.1 Consideration of settlement is a serious matter that requires preparation prior to the settlement conference. Set forth below are the procedures the Court will employ when conducting the conference.

Confidential Settlement Statements

At least five (5) court days prior to the settlement conference, each party shall submit a Confidential Settlement Conference Statement in Word format directly to the judge's chambers who is conducting the settlement conference. The statement shall not be filed on the docket or served on any other party. Each statement shall be clearly marked "confidential" with the date and time of the settlement conference clearly noted on the first page. The Confidential Settlement Conference Statement shall include the following:

VI. Related Matters Pending

This matter is not related to any other case.

VII. Effect Of This Order

This order represents the Court and the parties' best estimated schedule to complete this case. Any party unable to comply with the dates outlined in this order shall immediately file an appropriate motion or stipulation identifying the requested modification(s).

The dates set in this Order are considered to be firm and will not be modified absent a showing of good cause, even if a stipulation to modify is filed. Stipulations extending the deadlines contained herein will not be considered unless they are accompanied by affidavits or declarations with attached exhibits, where appropriate, that establish good cause for granting the requested relief. Due to the impacted nature of the civil case docket, this Court disfavors requests to modify established dates.

All counsel are expected to familiarize themselves with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of the Eastern District of California and to keep abreast of any amendments thereto. The Court requires strict compliance with these rules. Sanctions will be imposed for failure to follow the rules as provided in both the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of the Eastern District of California.

Failure to comply with this order shall result in the imposition of sanctions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.