1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WESTWOOD HOMES, INC., et al., No. 2:25-cv-1917-CKD 12 Plaintiffs, 13 v. PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER 14 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al., 15 Defendants.

16 17 READ THIS ORDER CAREFULLY. IT CONTAINS IMPORTANT DATES THAT 18 THE COURT WILL STRICTLY ENFORCE AND WITH WHICH ALL COUNSEL AND 19 PARTIES MUST COMPLY. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE TERMS OF THIS ORDER 20 MAY RESULT IN THE IMPOSITION OF MONETARY AND ALL OTHER APPROPRIATE 21 SANCTIONS, INCLUDING DISMISSAL OR AN ORDER OF JUDGMENT. 22 After all parties consented to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge for all 23 purposes pursuant to

(c), this action was assigned to the undersigned for all 24 further proceedings and entry of final judgment. (ECF No. 8.) Having considered the parties’ 25 joint status report and joint discovery plan (ECF Nos. 10, 13)1, the court issues the following 26

27 1 The Court altered the parties’ proposed deadline to file dispositive motions on or before September 1, 2026. Instead, all law and motion, except as to discovery-related matters, shall be 28 filed and noticed to be heard no later than October 7, 2026. 1 pretrial scheduling order. 2 NATURE OF THE CASE 3 In 2016, the Sacramento County Planning Commission issued a Special Development 4 Permit (“SPD”) and a Tentative Subdivision Map about real property owned by Plaintiffs, 5 authorizing division of a single lot into single-family lots with a common area. County of 6 Sacramento staff reviewed and approved site plans, and further approved the issuance of building 7 permits for the first five of eight planned units. Subsequently, the County alleges it discovered 8 that architectural elements from the three remaining single-family lots encroach into the common 9 area and a utility easement. The parties dispute whether the encroachments were approved and 10 are permissible under the site plans, application of the Residential Code to the development, 11 whether the County can permissibly withhold permits for further development until the 12 encroachments are removed, whether the County and its employees impermissibly and 13 unconstitutionally conditioned issuance of the remaining permits on approvals of third parties, 14 and whether the denial of permits for the remaining lots for an approximate two (2) year period 15 was wrongful and constituted a taking of Plaintiffs’ property rights. 16 SERVICE OF PROCESS 17 Defendants removed this case from state court. No further service is permitted except 18 with leave of Court, good cause having been shown. 19 JOINDER OF PARTIES/AMENDMENT OF PLEADINGS 20 Defendants have answered Plaintiffs’ complaint. No further joinder of parties is permitted 21 except with leave of Court, good cause having been shown. Pursuant to the parties’ agreement 22 and proposal in the joint discovery plan, the last day to seek leave to amend pleadings is 23 December 1, 2025. 24 JURISDICTION/VENUE 25 Jurisdiction and venue are undisputed, and are hereby found to be proper. 26 INITIAL DISCLOSURES 27 To the extent the parties have not already done so, the parties shall exchange initial 28 disclosures within 14 days of the date of this order. Such disclosures shall include production of 1 any documents and other items required by Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(ii) that are within a party’s 2 possession, custody, or control. 3 DISCOVERY DEADLINES, PROCEDURES FOR DISCOVERY DISPUTES 4 All non-expert discovery shall be completed2 by April 30, 2026. Any discovery-related 5 motions must conform to the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this 6 Court’s Local Rules, including Local Rule 251. Judge Delaney generally hears civil motions on 7 Wednesdays at 10:00 a.m. 8 Prior to filing any discovery-related motions, the parties are required to meet and confer in 9 good faith in an attempt to resolve their discovery disputes informally and without court 10 intervention. Such meet and confer shall take place in person, or at a minimum, via a telephonic 11 conference. The mere exchange of letters or e-mails alone is not sufficient. As part of their joint 12 statement related to a discovery motion submitted pursuant to Local Rule 251, the parties shall 13 also specifically outline: (a) what meet-and-confer efforts were undertaken; (b) when and where 14 such discussions took place; (c) who was present; and (d) how the parties’ disputes were 15 narrowed as a result of such discussions. Failure to comply with these requirements may result in 16 summary denial of any discovery motion. 17 The Court strongly encourages the use of informal telephonic discovery conferences with 18 the Court in lieu of formal discovery motion practice. The procedures and conditions for 19 requesting and conducting such an informal telephonic discovery conference are outlined in 20 Judge Delaney’s “Order re Informal Telephonic Conferences re Discovery Disputes,” posted on 21 the Court’s website at http://www.caed.uscourts.gov/caednew/index.cfm/judges/all-judges/5055/. 22 Additionally, subject to the Court’s availability, the Court will also rule on disputes encountered 23 at oral depositions, so as to avoid such depositions from breaking down. In the course of the 24 deposition, the parties may contact Judge Delaney’s courtroom deputy clerk at (916) 930-4004 to 25 inquire regarding Judge Delaney’s availability. However, the parties are cautioned that these 26

27 2 “Completed” means (1) all discovery shall have been conducted so that all depositions have been taken and (2) any disputes related to discovery shall have been resolved by appropriate order 28 if necessary and, where discovery has been ordered, the order has been complied with. 1 informal procedures are not to be abused, and the Court may impose appropriate sanctions on an 2 offending party or parties, even in the course of informal discovery conferences. 3 EXPERT DISCLOSURES AND DISCOVERY 4 The parties shall disclose any expert witnesses in accordance with the specifications of 5 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) no later than June 1, 2026. Any rebuttal expert 6 disclosures shall be made in accordance with the specifications of Federal Rule of Civil 7 Procedure 26(a)(2) no later than July 1, 2026. Expert disclosures shall be filed with the Court 8 and served upon all other parties. All expert discovery shall be completed (see fn. 3) by August 9 3, 2026. The same procedures for fact–discovery disputes apply to expert–discovery disputes. 10 An expert witness not timely disclosed will not be permitted to testify unless the party 11 offering the witness demonstrates that: (a) the necessity of the witness could not have been 12 reasonably anticipated at the time that the expert disclosures were due; (b) the Court and opposing 13 counsel were promptly notified upon discovery of the witness; and (c) the witness was promptly 14 proffered for deposition. Failure to provide the information required by Federal Rule of Civil 15 Procedure 26(a)(2) along with the expert disclosures may lead to preclusion of the expert’s 16 testimony or other appropriate sanctions. 17 LAW AND MOTION 18 All law and motion, except as to discovery-related matters, shall be completed (i.e. heard) 19 by October 7, 2026. Counsel and/or parties proceeding without counsel are cautioned to refer to 20 the Local Rules regarding the requirements for noticing such motions on the Court’s regularly 21 scheduled law and motion calendar, including, but not limited to, Local Rule 230. Judge Delaney 22 generally hears civil motions on Wednesdays at 10:00 a.m. This paragraph does not preclude 23 motions for continuances, motions in limine related to trial, temporary restraining orders, or other 24 emergency applications, for which the Court may set a special briefing schedule, if necessary or 25 appropriate. 26 ALL PURELY LEGAL ISSUES ARE TO BE RESOLVED BY TIMELY PRETRIAL 27 MOTION. The purpose of law and motion is to narrow and refine the legal issues raised by the 28 case, as well as to dispose of those issues that are susceptible to resolution without trial by pretrial 1 motion. To accomplish that purpose, the parties need to identify and fully research the issues 2 presented by the case, then examine those issues in light of the evidence obtained through 3 discovery. If it appears to counsel after examining the legal issues and facts that an issue can be 4 resolved by pretrial motion, counsel are to file the appropriate motion consistent with the law and 5 motion cutoff set forth above. Conversely, motions in limine are procedural devices designed to 6 address the admissibility of evidence. THE COURT WILL LOOK WITH DISFAVOR UPON 7 SUBSTANTIVE MOTIONS PRESENTED UNDER THE GUISE OF MOTIONS IN LIMINE 8 AT THE TIME OF TRIAL. 9 FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE/TRIAL SETTING 10 Plaintiff demands a jury trial. The Court declines to set final pretrial conference and trial 11 dates at this juncture. Instead, the Court orders the parties to submit a Notice of Trial Readiness 12 on one of the following timelines: 13 A. After resolution of any pending dispositive motions, the parties are to submit the 14 Notice not later than thirty (30) days after receiving the court’s ruling(s) on the last 15 filed dispositive motion(s); or 16 B. If the parties do not intend to file dispositive motions, the parties are ordered to file the 17 Notice not later than one hundred twenty (120) days after the close of discovery and 18 the notice must include statements of intent to forgo the filing of dispositive motions. 19 In the Notice of Trial Readiness, the parties are to set forth the appropriateness of special 20 procedures, their estimated trial length, any request for a jury, their availability for trial, and if the 21 parties are willing to attend a settlement conference. The Notice shall also estimate how many 22 court days each party will require to present its case, including opening statements and closing 23 arguments. The parties' estimate shall include time necessary for jury selection, time necessary to 24 finalize jury instructions and instruct the jury. After review of the parties’ Joint Notice of Trial 25 Readiness, the court will issue an order that sets forth dates for a final pretrial conference and 26 trial. 27 //// 28 //// 1 OBJECTIONS 2 Any objections to this pretrial scheduling order shall be filed within seven (7) days. 3 SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE 4 The parties state they are amenable to private mediation. Should the parties in addition or 5 || instead wish to conduct a settlement conference with another magistrate judge, they are to contact 6 || the undersigned’s courtroom deputy clerk to inquire as to the availability of another magistrate 7 || judge for a settlement conference. 8 MODIFICATION OF THIS SCHEDULING ORDER 9 The parties are reminded that pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4), this 10 || order shall not be modified except by leave of court upon a showing of “good cause.” See 11 || Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 1992). Mere agreement by the 12 || parties pursuant to a stipulation does not constitute good cause. Nor does the unavailability of 13 || witnesses or counsel, except in extraordinary circumstances, constitute good cause. 14 | Dated: September 30, 2025 / aa / x ly a

16 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 18 || 8, west25ev1917.sched.o 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28