Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 21, 2021

Kennedy v. County of Contra Costa

Judge
Corle
Docket
3:19-cv-04280
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
8
DiscoveryCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Kennedy v. County of Contra Costa, Judge Corle denied Kennedy’s late interrogatory motion and set deadlines for trial preparation.

Who this affects

Johl Jonathan Kennedy and the defendants in the case, including the County of Contra Costa.

What happened

In Kennedy v. County of Contra Costa, the court issued an amended pretrial order after a January 21, 2021 case-management conference. The case was scheduled to continue toward a jury trial.

The court denied Johl Jonathan Kennedy’s motion to compel answers to interrogatories because he served them after the fact-discovery deadline. It also set deadlines for summary-judgment motions and opposition papers, scheduled a July 8, 2021 hearing, and set a December 6, 2021 jury-trial date.

Judge Jacqueline Scott Corle also scheduled a final pretrial conference for November 18, 2021, and set requirements for proposed exhibits, witnesses, jury instructions, motions before trial, and other trial materials. The order did not decide the underlying claims.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Kennedy v. County of Contra Costa · No. 3:19-cv-04280
Judge
Corle
Date
Jan. 21, 2021

Nature of the Order

This amended pretrial order followed a further case-management conference. It addressed discovery, summary-judgment scheduling, trial scheduling, and the parties’ required pretrial submissions. It did not decide the merits of the claims.

Discovery Ruling

The court denied Johl Jonathan Kennedy’s motion to compel responses to interrogatories. The stated reason was that the interrogatories were served well after the fact-discovery deadline.

Summary Judgment

The court set May 6, 2021, as the deadline for a motion for summary judgment; June 3, 2021, for the opposition; and June 17, 2021, for the reply. The hearing was scheduled for July 8, 2021, at 9:00 a.m. The order explained that summary judgment under Rule 56 may end the case if there is no genuine dispute about a material fact, and advised the plaintiff that opposing evidence would be required to show a real factual dispute.

Trial and Pretrial Schedule

The court scheduled a jury trial to begin December 6, 2021, at 8:30 a.m., with an expected length of no more than five court days. A final pretrial conference was scheduled for November 18, 2021, at 2:00 p.m. At least seven days before that conference, the parties were required to meet and confer and file a jointly signed proposed final pretrial order, proposed jury instructions, any supporting memoranda for disputed instructions, proposed voir dire questions, trial briefs on controlling legal issues, proposed verdict forms, exhibit objections, and a simplified statement of the case.

The order also limited each party to five motions in limine, with specified briefing and filing deadlines. It provided detailed procedures for jury selection, witness disclosures, exhibits, charging conferences, courtroom equipment, and trial scheduling.

Disposition

The court denied the motion to compel and otherwise entered scheduling and trial-management requirements. No ruling was made on the parties’ underlying claims or defenses.

The authoritative version

Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.