united states district court to a united states …...notice of assignment of case . to a united...

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT OF CASE TO A UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR TRIAL

Pursuant to General Order 44, the Assignment Plan of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, this case has been randomly assigned to a Magistrate Judge. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), with written consent of all parties, a magistrate judge may conduct all proceedings in a case, including all pretrial and trial proceedings, entry of judgment and post-trial motions. Appeal will be directly to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Attached is a form to complete to indicate whether you consent to proceed before the assigned magistrate judge or decline to proceed before the assigned magistrate judge. This form is also available from the Court’s website: cand.uscourts.gov/civilforms. You are free to withhold consent without adverse consequences. If any party declines, the case will be reassigned to a district judge. If you are the plaintiff or removing party in this case, you must file your consent/declination form within 14 days of receipt of this notice. Each other party must file its consent/declination form within 14 days of appearing in the case. The plaintiff or removing party must serve a copy of this notice upon all other parties to this action.

http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/civilforms

STANDING ORDER FOR ALL JUDGES

OF THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CONTENTS OF JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

All judges of the Northern District of California require identical information in Joint CaseManagement Statements filed pursuant to Civil Local Rule 16-9. The parties must includethe following information in their statement which, except in unusually complex cases,should not exceed ten pages:

1. Jurisdiction and Service: The basis for the court’s subject matter jurisdiction overplaintiff's claims and defendant’s counterclaims, whether any issues exist regardingpersonal jurisdiction or venue, whether any parties remain to be served, and, if anyparties remain to be served, a proposed deadline for service.

2. Facts: A brief chronology of the facts and a statement of the principal factual issues indispute.

3. Legal Issues: A brief statement, without extended legal argument, of the disputedpoints of law, including reference to specific statutes and decisions.

4. Motions: All prior and pending motions, their current status, and any anticipatedmotions.

5. Amendment of Pleadings: The extent to which parties, claims, or defenses areexpected to be added or dismissed and a proposed deadline for amending thepleadings.

6. Evidence Preservation: A brief report certifying that the parties have reviewed theGuidelines Relating to the Discovery of Electronically Stored Information (“ESIGuidelines”), and confirming that the parties have met and conferred pursuant toFed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) regarding reasonable and proportionate steps taken to preserveevidence relevant to the issues reasonably evident in this action. See ESI Guidelines2.01 and 2.02, and Checklist for ESI Meet and Confer.

7. Disclosures: Whether there has been full and timely compliance with the initialdisclosure requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26, and a description of the disclosuresmade.

8. Discovery: Discovery taken to date, if any, the scope of anticipated discovery, anyproposed limitations or modifications of the discovery rules, a brief report onwhether the parties have considered entering into a stipulated e-discovery order, aproposed discovery plan pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f), and any identifieddiscovery disputes.

9. Class Actions: If a class action, a proposal for how and when the class will becertified.

2Rev. Nov. 1, 2014

10. Related Cases: Any related cases or proceedings pending before another judge of thiscourt, or before another court or administrative body.

11. Relief: All relief sought through complaint or counterclaim, including the amount ofany damages sought and a description of the bases on which damages are calculated.In addition, any party from whom damages are sought must describe the bases onwhich it contends damages should be calculated if liability is established.

12. Settlement and ADR: Prospects for settlement, ADR efforts to date, and a specificADR plan for the case, including compliance with ADR L.R. 3-5 and a description ofkey discovery or motions necessary to position the parties to negotiate a resolution.

13. Consent to Magistrate Judge For All Purposes: Whether all parties will consent tohave a magistrate judge conduct all further proceedings including trial and entry ofjudgment. ___ Yes ___ No

14. Other References: Whether the case is suitable for reference to binding arbitration, aspecial master, or the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.

15. Narrowing of Issues: Issues that can be narrowed by agreement or by motion,suggestions to expedite the presentation of evidence at trial (e.g., through summariesor stipulated facts), and any request to bifurcate issues, claims, or defenses.

16. Expedited Trial Procedure: Whether this is the type of case that can be handled underthe Expedited Trial Procedure of General Order No. 64 Attachment A. If all partiesagree, they shall instead of this Statement, file an executed Agreement for ExpeditedTrial and a Joint Expedited Case Management Statement, in accordance with GeneralOrder No. 64 Attachments B and D.

17. Scheduling: Proposed dates for designation of experts, discovery cutoff, hearing ofdispositive motions, pretrial conference and trial.

18. Trial: Whether the case will be tried to a jury or to the court and the expected lengthof the trial.

19. Disclosure of Non-party Interested Entities or Persons: Whether each party has filedthe “Certification of Interested Entities or Persons” required by Civil Local Rule 3-15.In addition, each party must restate in the case management statement the contents ofits certification by identifying any persons, firms, partnerships, corporations(including parent corporations) or other entities known by the party to have either: (i)a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding;or (ii) any other kind of interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome ofthe proceeding.

20. Professional Conduct: Whether all attorneys of record for the parties have reviewedthe Guidelines for Professional Conduct for the Northern District of California.

21. Such other matters as may facilitate the just, speedy and inexpensive disposition ofthis matter.

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

27

28

Uni

ted

Stat

es D

istri

ct C

ourt

Nor

ther

n D

istri

ct o

f Cal

iforn

ia



Plaintiff(s) v.

Defendant(s).

Case No. C CONSENT OR DECLINATION TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE JURISDICTION

INSTRUCTIONS: Please indicate below by checking one of the two boxes whether you (if you are the party) or the party you represent (if you are an attorney in the case) choose(s) to consent or decline magistrate judge jurisdiction in this matter. Sign this form below your selection.

☐ Consent to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), I voluntarily consent to have a United States magistrate judge conduct all further proceedings in this case, including trial and entry of final judgment. I understand that appeal from the judgment shall be taken directly to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. OR

☐ Decline Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), I decline to have a United States magistrate judge conduct all further proceedings in this case and I hereby request that this case be reassigned to a United States district judge. DATE: ________________ NAME: COUNSEL FOR

(OR “PRO SE”):

Signature

Filing Procedures (San Francisco)To supplement the local rules, the following guidelines have been provided to ensure that the filing process is accomplished with ease and accuracy. For additional information or assistance, please call the Clerk's Office during office hours.

1. Manually filed documents are filed in the Clerk’s Office at the location of the chambers of the judge to whom the action has been assigned. We do not accept filings for cases assigned to judges or magistrate judges in the Oakland or San Jose division, per Civil Local Rule 3-2(b).

2. This office will accept for filing the original and one copy of most documents submitted. The original will be scanned and filed in the electronic format. The hard copy will be disposed of in civil cases. We will conform as many copies as you bring for your own use. Related cases require an extra copy for eachrelated action designated.

3. The copy submitted with the original goes directly to the assigned Judge. No additional copies for the judge should be provided, unless you have been instructed to do so by court order.

4. To facilitate the file stamping process, each original document must be submitted on top of its copies. In other words; group like documents together, as opposed to a set of originals and separate sets of copies.

5. The case number must indicate whether it is a civil or criminal matter by the inclusion of C or CR at the beginning of the number. Miscellaneous and foreign judgment matters should also be indicated with initials MISC at the end of the case number. The case number must include the initials of the judge and/or magistrate judge.

6. Documents containing hearing dates should include the appropriate judge or magistrate judge involved in a particular matter or before whom an appearance is being made. This is especially important when submitting Settlement Conference Statements.

7. Documents are to be stapled or acco-fastened at the top. Backings, bindings and covers are not required. Two holes punched at the top of the original document will facilitate processing.

8. Appropriately sized, stamped, self-addressed return envelopes are to be included with proposed orders or when filing documents by mail.

9. Proofs of service should be attached to the back of documents. If submitted separately, you must attach a pleading page to the front of the document showing case number and case caption.

10. There are no filing fees once a case has been opened, aside from the fee for a Notice of Appeal.

11. New cases must be accompanied by a completed and signed Civil Cover Sheet, the filing fee or fee waiver request form and an original plus two copies of the complaint and any other documents. For Intellectual Property cases, please provide an original plus three copies of the complaint. Present new cases for filing before 3:30 p.m.

12. Copies of forms may be obtained at no charge. They may be picked up in person from the Clerk’s Office or with a written request accompanied by an appropriate sized, stamped, self-addressed envelope for return. In addition, copies of the Local Rules may be obtained, free of charge, in the Clerk’s Office or by sending a written request, along with a self-addressed, 10" x 14" return envelope, stamped with $7.50 postage to: Clerk, U.S. District Court, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, 16th Flr. San Francisco CA, 94102.

13. Two computer terminals that allow public access to case dockets and information regarding files at the Federal Records Center (FRC) are located in the reception area of the Clerk’s Office. Written instructions are posted by the terminals. Outside of the Clerk’s Office, electronic access to dockets is available through PACER (www.pacer.gov). To obtain information or to register call 1-800-676-6851.

14. A file viewing area is located adjacent to the reception area. Files may be viewed in this area after signing the log sheet and presenting identification. Under no circumstances are files to be removed from the viewing room. (Hours for San Francisco are 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.)

15. The Clerk’s Office can only accept payment by exact change, check or credit card, made payable to Clerk, U.S. District Court. No change can be made for fees or the public copy machine.

16. A coin/card operated copy machine is located in the file viewing area for public use, at twenty-five cents ($.25) per page. Personal copiers may be brought in at anytime during normal operating hours.

17. Drop Boxes for filing are available when the Clerk's Office is closed.

Uni

ted

Stat

es D

istr

ict C

ourt

For

the

Nor

ther

n D

istr

ict o

f C

alif

orni

a

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

27

28

Last revised January 11, 2016.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GUIDELINES FOR TRIAL AND FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE

IN CIVIL BENCH CASES

BEFORE THE HONORABLE WILLIAM ALSUP

FRCP 26(A)(3) DISCLOSURES

1. All parties are reminded of their disclosure duties under FRCP 26(a)(3),

which begin THIRTY CALENDAR DAYS before trial. The FRCP 26(a)(3)(B) requirement for

designating deposition transcripts, however, need not be done until later, as set forth below,

although the name of each trial witness to appear by deposition must be so designated at least

THIRTY CALENDAR DAYS before trial.

FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE

2. At least SEVEN CALENDAR DAYS in advance of the final pretrial conference,

please file the following:

(a) A joint proposed final pretrial order, signed and vetted by all

counsel, that contains: (i) a brief description of the substance of claims and

defenses which remain to be decided, (ii) a statement of all relief sought, (iii) all

stipulated facts, (iv) a list of all factual issues which remain to be tried, (v) a joint

exhibit list in numerical order, including a brief description of the exhibit and

Uni

ted

Stat

es D

istr

ict C

ourt

For

the

Nor

ther

n D

istr

ict o

f C

alif

orni

a

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

27

28

2

Bates numbers, a column for when it is offered in evidence, a column for when it

is received in evidence, and a column for any limitations on its use, and (vi) each

party’s separate witness list for its case-in-chief witnesses (including those

appearing by deposition) providing, for all such witnesses other than an individual

plaintiff and an individual defendant, a statement of the substance of his/her

testimony and, separately, what, if any, non-cumulative testimony the witness will

give (to be used to set time limits). Items (v) and (vi) should be appendices to the

proposed order.

(b) Any motion in limine, with the opposition, filed as follows:

At least TWENTY CALENDAR DAYS before the conference, serve, but do not yet

file, the moving papers. At least TEN CALENDAR DAYS before the conference,

serve the oppositions. When the oppositions are received, the moving party

should collate the motion and the opposition together, back to back, and then file

the paired sets at least SEVEN CALENDAR DAYS before the conference.

Each motion should be presented in a separate memo and numbered as in,

for example, “Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 1 to Exclude . . . .” Please limit

motions in limine to circumstances that really need a ruling in advance. In bench

trials, usually three or fewer motions per side is sufficient at the conference stage

(without prejudice to raising matters in limine as the trial progresses).

Each motion should address a single topic, be separate, and contain no more than

seven pages of briefing per side.

(c) Copies of the Rule 26(a)(3) disclosures.

(d) Each side’s proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law.

(e) Trial briefs are optional.

3. The above shall be submitted on a 3-1/2-inch disk in WordPerfect 10.0 format,

as well as in hard copies. All hard-copy submissions should be three-hole punched on the left, so

the judge’s copy can be put in binders. Please provide them at least seven calendar days prior

to the pretrial conference for the judge’s study and review — this is important.

Uni

ted

Stat

es D

istr

ict C

ourt

For

the

Nor

ther

n D

istr

ict o

f C

alif

orni

a

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

27

28

3

4. At the final pretrial conference, counsel must take notes on rulings and later

submit a joint summary of all rulings in proposed-order format.

PRETRIAL ARRANGEMENTS

5. Should a daily transcript and/or real-time reporting be desired, the parties shall

make timely arrangements with Deb Campbell, Court Services Coordinator, at

[email protected].

6. Counsel are encouraged to use overhead projectors, laser-disk/computer graphics,

poster blow-ups, models or specimens. The Court provides no equipment other than an easel.

The United States Marshal requires a court order to allow equipment into the courthouse. For

electronic equipment, either know how to fix it or have a technician handy. For overhead

projectors, have a spare bulb. Tape extension cords to the carpet for safety. Please take down

and store the equipment (in the courtroom) at the end of each court day. Please work with Dawn

Logan (415-522-2020) on courtroom-layout issues.

SCHEDULING

7. The normal trial schedule will be 7:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. (or slightly longer to

finish a witness) with two fifteen-minute breaks and ending before lunch. Counsel must arrive

by 7:30 a.m. The trial week is usually Monday through Friday.

OPENING STATEMENTS

8. Each side will have a time limit for its opening statement (to be determined at the

final pretrial conference). Counsel must cooperate and meet and confer to exchange any visuals,

graphics or exhibits to be used in the opening statements.

WITNESSES

9. Except for good cause, all counsel are entitled to written firm notice of the order

of witnesses for the next court day and the exhibits to be used on direct examination (other than

for true impeachment of a witness). The Court encourages two days notice, i.e., written notice

by 2:00 p.m. on the second calendar day before the witnesses testify or the exhibit is used. At a

minimum, notice must be no later than 2:00 p.m. on the calendar day immediately preceding.

If two days written notice is given, then all other counsel must give written notice of all other

Uni

ted

Stat

es D

istr

ict C

ourt

For

the

Nor

ther

n D

istr

ict o

f C

alif

orni

a

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

27

28

4

exhibits to be used on cross-examination (except for true impeachment) by 2:00 p.m. on the

calendar day immediately preceding the testimony; otherwise, other responding counsel need not

give notice of exhibits they may use. Any exhibit timely noticed by anyone for the witness is

usable as if timely noticed by everyone, subject to substantive objections. Similarly, if reference

is made to an exhibit during an examination (even if not offered in evidence and even if not

noticed for use with the witness), then in any follow-up examination by others, the exhibit may

be used to the same extent as if it had been timely noticed, subject to substantive objections.

All notices shall be sent by fax or electronically and be time-and-date verifiable. If counsel

decides not to call a noticed witness, then prompt written notice of the cancellation must be

given. Impeachment exhibits are ordinarily limited to statements signed by or adopted by the

witness.

10. Always have your next witness ready and in the courthouse. Failure to have the

next witness ready or to be prepared to proceed with the evidence will usually constitute resting.

If counsel plans to read in a transcript of a deposition anyway, it is advisable to have a deposition

prepared and vetted early on to read “just in case.”

11. When there are multiple parties, counsel are responsible for coordination of the

cross-examination to avoid duplication. Stand at or near the microphone to ask questions,

straying only to point out material on charts or overheads. Please request permission to approach

the witness or the bench.

EXPERTS

12. A recurring problem in trials is the problem of expert witnesses trying to go

beyond the scope of their expert reports on direct examination. FRCP 26(a)(2) and FRCP 37(c)

limit experts to the opinions and bases contained in their timely reports (absent substantial

justification or harmlessness). The Court regularly enforces these rules. FRCP 26(a) also

requires that any “exhibits to be used as a summary of or support for the opinions” be included in

the report. Accordingly, at trial, the direct testimony of experts will be limited to the matters

disclosed in their reports. New matters may not ordinarily be added on direct examination.

This means the reports must be complete and sufficiently detailed. Illustrative animations,

Uni

ted

Stat

es D

istr

ict C

ourt

For

the

Nor

ther

n D

istr

ict o

f C

alif

orni

a

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

27

28

5

diagrams, charts and models may be used on direct examination only if they were part of the

expert’s report, with the exception of simple drawings and tabulations that plainly illustrate what

is already in the report, which can be drawn by the witness at trial or otherwise shown to the

jury. If cross-examination fairly opens the door, however, an expert may go beyond the written

report on cross-examination and/or re-direct examination. By written stipulation, of course, all

sides may relax these requirements. Material in a “reply” report must ordinarily be presented in

a party’s rebuttal (or sur-rebuttal) case after the other side’s expert has appeared and testified.

13. Another recurring problem is the retained expert who seeks to vouch for the

credibility of fact witnesses and/or to vouch for one side’s fact scenario. Qualified experts,

of course, are always welcome to testify concerning relevant scientific principles, professional

standards, specialized facts known within a trade or discipline and the like. They are also

welcome to apply those principles and standards to various assumed fact scenarios. This is so

even if an opinion is given on the “ultimate issue.” But they should not try to vouch for one

side’s fact scenario, i.e., witness believability.

14. There is an important exception. Experts and doctors who perform scientific

tests, site visits, or treat victims, among other possibilities, may testify to their findings within

the scope of their firsthand knowledge. This is because they have made personal observations

and have reached professional judgments based thereon. Carrying this one step further, even a

retained expert may read a financial statement in evidence, watch a video in evidence, listen to a

recording in evidence, and so on and offer opinions based on the contents. This is because the

contents themselves are clearly defined.

15. As to damages studies, the cut-off date for past damages will be as of the expert

report (or such earlier date as the expert may select). In addition, the experts may try to project

future damages (i.e., after the cut-off date) if the substantive standards for future damages can be

met. With timely leave of Court or by written stipulation, the experts may update their reports

(with supplemental reports) to a date closer to the time of trial.

Uni

ted

Stat

es D

istr

ict C

ourt

For

the

Nor

ther

n D

istr

ict o

f C

alif

orni

a

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

27

28

6

USE OF DEPOSITIONS TO IMPEACH AND SHORT READ-INS

16. Depositions can be used at trial to impeach a witness testifying at trial or, in the

case of a party deponent, “for any purpose.” Please follow the following procedure:

(a) On the first day of trial, be sure to bring the original and clean

copies of any deposition(s) for which you are responsible. Any corrections must

be readily available. If you are likely to need to use the deposition during a

witness examination, then give the Court a copy with any witness corrections at

the outset of your examination. This will minimize delay between the original

question and the read-ins of the impeaching material. Opposing counsel should

have their copy immediately available.

(b) When you wish to read in a passage, simply say, for example:

“I wish to read in page 210, lines 1 to 10 from the witness’ deposition.” A brief

pause will be allowed for any objection.

(c) When reading in the passage, state “question” and then read the

question exactly. Then state “answer” and then read the answer exactly.

Stating “question” and “answer” is necessary so the jury and the court reporter

can follow who was talking at the deposition.

(d) The first time a deposition is read, state the deponent’s name, the

date of the deposition, the name of the lawyer asking the question, and if it was

FRCP 30(b)(6) deposition, please say so.

(e) Please do NOT ask, “Didn’t you say XYZ in your deposition?”

The problem with such a question is that the “XYZ” rarely turns out to be

exactly what the deponent said and is part spin. Instead, ask for permission to

read in a passage, as above, and read it in exactly, without spin.

(f) Subject to Rule 403, party depositions may be read in whether or

not they contradict (and regardless of who the witness is on the stand).

For example, a short party deposition excerpt may be used as foundation for

questions for a different witness on the stand.

Uni

ted

Stat

es D

istr

ict C

ourt

For

the

Nor

ther

n D

istr

ict o

f C

alif

orni

a

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

27

28

7

(g) Rather than reading the passage, counsel are free to play an

audiovisual digitized version of the passage but counsel must have a system for

immediate display of the precise passage.

DEPOSITION DESIGNATION

17. The following procedure applies only to witnesses who appear by deposition.

It does not apply to live witnesses whose depositions are read in while they are on the stand.

To save time and avoid unnecessary work, it is not necessary to make all deposition

designations before trial (as normally required by FRCP 26(3)(B)). In the Court’s experience,

by the time the read-in occurs, the proponent has usually reduced substantially the proposed

read-ins. Instead, the following steps should be followed:

(a) To designate deposition testimony, photocopy the cover page,

the page where the witness is sworn, and then each page from which any

testimony is proffered. Line through or x-out any portions of such pages not

proffered. Also, line through objections or colloquy unless they are needed to

understand the question. Please make sure any corrections are interlineated and

that references to exhibit numbers are conformed to the trial numbers.

Such interlineations should be done by hand. The finished packet should then be

the actual script and should smoothly present the identification and swearing of

the witness and testimony desired. The packet should be provided to all other

parties at least FIVE CALENDAR DAYS before it will be used in court. For the rare

case of voluminous designations, more lead time will be required. Please be

reasonable.

(b) All other parties must then promptly review the packet and

highlight in yellow any passages objected to and write in the margin the legal

basis for the objections. If any completeness objection is made, the objecting

party must insert into the packet the additional passages as needed to cure the

completeness objection. A completeness objection should normally be made

only if a few extra lines will cure the problem. Such additions shall be

Uni

ted

Stat

es D

istr

ict C

ourt

For

the

Nor

ther

n D

istr

ict o

f C

alif

orni

a

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

27

28

8

highlighted in blue and an explanation for the inclusion shall be legibly

handwritten in the margin. Please line out or x-out any irrelevant portions of the

additional pages.

(c) The packets, as adjusted, must then be returned to the proffering

party, who must then decide the extent to which to accept the adjustments.

The parties must meet and confer as reasonable. Counsel for the proffering party

must collate and assemble a final packet that covers the proffer and all remaining

issues. At least TWO CALENDAR DAYS before the proffer will be used, the

proponent must provide the Court with the final packet, with any objected-to

portions highlighted and annotated as described above. If exhibits are needed to

resolve the objections, include copies and highlight and tag the relevant

passages. Alert the Court on the record that the packet is being provided and

whether any rulings are needed. Tag all passages that require a ruling. The

Court will then read the packet and indicate its rulings. Ordinarily, argument

will not be needed.

(d) Counter designations must be made by providing a packet with

the counter-designated passages to the proponent at the same time any objections

to the original proffer are returned to the first proffering party, who must then

supply its objections in the same manner.

(e) When the packet is read to the jury, the examiner reads the

questions (and any relevant colloquy) from the lectern and a colleague sits in the

witness stand and reads the answers. When a video-taped deposition is to be

played instead, the packets must still be prepared, as above, in order to facilitate

rulings on objections. The video should omit any dead time, long pauses, and

objections/colloquy not necessary to understand the answers.

REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS AND INTERROGATORIES

18. Please designate responses to requests for admissions and interrogatory answers

in the same manner and under the same timetable as depositions.

Uni

ted

Stat

es D

istr

ict C

ourt

For

the

Nor

ther

n D

istr

ict o

f C

alif

orni

a

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

27

28

9

EXHIBITS

19. As stated, FRCP 26(a)(3)(C) disclosures regarding proposed exhibits must be

made at least THIRTY CALENDAR DAYS before trial and any objections thereto must be made

within FOURTEEN CALENDAR DAYS thereafter (or waived unless excused for good cause).

The joint list must be filed SEVEN CALENDAR DAYS in advance of the final pretrial conference

(as per paragraph 2 above). By designating an exhibit, a party waives any objection to it if

offered by the other side (even if not designated by the other side) except for objections based

on Rule 402 or Rule 403. Nor will there be any waiver with respect to admissions by party

opponents, i.e., such admissions may be designated without waiving the objection that the same

items would be self-serving hearsay if offered by the other side. Nor will there be a waiver if

the designation is qualified to be operative only in a specified contingency, such as only if

issue X is eventually deemed relevant by the Court. If, however, that contingency materializes,

then such designated materials may be used by the other side, subject to the Rule 702, 703 and

804(d)(2) qualifications stated above.

20. Prior to the final pretrial conference, counsel will please meet and confer in

person over all exhibit numbers and objections and to weed out duplicate exhibits and confusion

over the precise exhibit. Use numbers only, not letters, for exhibits, preferably the same

numbers as were used in depositions. Blocks of numbers should be assigned to fit the need of

the case (e.g., Plaintiff has 1 to 100, Defendant A has 101 to 200, Defendant B has 201 to 300,

etc.). A single exhibit should be marked only once, just as it should have been marked only

once in discovery (if this Court’s guidelines were followed). If the plaintiff has marked an

exhibit, then the defendant should not re-mark the exact document with another number.

Different versions of the same document, e.g., a copy with additional handwriting, must be

treated as different exhibits with different numbers. To avoid any party claiming “ownership”

of an exhibit, all exhibits shall be marked and referred to as “Trial Exhibit No. _____,” not as

“Plaintiff’s Exhibit” or “Defendant’s Exhibit.” If an exhibit number differs from that used in a

deposition transcript, then the latter transcript must be conformed to the new trial number if and

Uni

ted

Stat

es D

istr

ict C

ourt

For

the

Nor

ther

n D

istr

ict o

f C

alif

orni

a

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

27

28

10

when the deposition testimony is read to the jury (so as to avoid confusion over exhibit

numbers).

21. The exhibit tag shall be in the following form:



TRIAL EXHIBIT 100CASE NO. _____________________

DATE ENTERED_________________

BY __________________________DEPUTY CLERK

Place the tag on or near the lower right-hand corner or, if a photograph, on the back. Counsel

should fill in the tag but leave the last two spaces blank. The parties must jointly prepare a

single set of all trial exhibits that will be the official record set to be used with the witnesses, in

the jury room, and on appeal. Each exhibit must be tagged and in a separate folder (not in

notebooks). Deposit the exhibits with the deputy clerk (Dawn Logan) on the first day of trial.

22. Please move exhibits into evidence as soon as the foundation is laid and it is

fresh in the judge’s mind. Do not postpone motions and expect the judge to remember the

foundation. Counsel must consult with each other and with the deputy clerk at the end of each

trial day and compare notes as to which exhibits are in evidence and any limitations thereon.

If there are any differences, counsel should bring them promptly to the Court’s attention.

23. Any objections ordinarily must have been preserved under FRCP 26(a)(3).

However, evidence that is cumulative or excludable under Rules 402–403 may possibly be

excluded even if no objection has been preserved under FRCP 26(a)(3).

24. In addition to the official record exhibits, a single, joint set of bench binders

containing copies of the key exhibits only (usually the combined top twenty will do) should be

provided to the Court on the first day of trial. Each exhibit must be separated with a label

Uni

ted

Stat

es D

istr

ict C

ourt

For

the

Nor

ther

n D

istr

ict o

f C

alif

orni

a

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

27

28

11

divider (an exhibit tag is unnecessary for the bench set). In large letters, the labels should say

the exhibit number on the binders. Please use binders thin enough to lift with one arm and with

locking rings.

OBJECTIONS DURING EXAMINATION

25. Counsel shall stand when making objections and shall not make speaking

objections. The one-lawyer-per-witness rule is usually followed but will be relaxed to allow

young lawyers a chance to perform.

TIME LIMITS

26. Ordinarily, the Court shall set fixed time limits at the final pretrial conference.

All of your examination time (whether direct, cross, re-direct or re-cross) for all witnesses must

fit within your time limit and you may allocate it as you wish. Opening and closing time limits

shall be in addition to your examination allocation.

SETTLEMENTS AND CONTINUANCES

27. Shortly before trial or a final pretrial conference, counsel occasionally wish

jointly to advise the clerk that a settlement has been reached and seek to take the setting off

calendar but it turns out later that there was only a settlement “in principle” and disputes

remain. Cases, however, cannot be taken off calendar in this manner. Unless and until a

stipulated dismissal or judgment is filed or placed on the record, all parties must be prepared to

proceed with the final pretrial conference as scheduled and to proceed to trial on the trial date,

on pain of dismissal of the case for lack of prosecution or entry of default judgment. Only an

advance continuance expressly approved by the Court will release counsel and the parties from

their obligation to proceed. If counsel expect that a settlement will be final by the time of trial

or the final pretrial conference, they should notify the Court immediately in writing or, if it

occurs over the weekend before the trial or conference, by voice mail to the deputy courtroom

clerk. The Court will attempt to confer with counsel as promptly as circumstances permit to

determine if a continuance will be in order. Pending such a conference, however, counsel must

prepare and make all filings and be prepared to proceed with the trial.

Uni

ted

Stat

es D

istr

ict C

ourt

For

the

Nor

ther

n D

istr

ict o

f C

alif

orni

a

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

27

28

12

28. The Court strongly encourages law firms to permit young lawyers to examine

witnesses at trial and to have an important role. It is the way one generation will teach the next

to try cases and to maintain our district’s reputation for excellence in trial practice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 11, 2016. WILLIAM ALSUPUNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

United States District Court Northern District of California

ECF Registration Information

Electronic Case Filing (ECF or “e-filing”) is mandatory for all civil cases in this court. Pleaserefer to Civil Local Rule 5-1 for the Court’s rules pertaining to electronic filing. Effective August19, 2013, e-filing of initiating documents (complaints; notices of removal) is allowed, but is notmandatory; all other documents must be e-filed in civil cases.

Parties who are representing themselves pro se (without attorney representation) are notrequired to e-file and, in fact, may e-file only with the permission of the assigned judge.

Please review and attend to the following important notes and tasks:

• Serve this ECF Registration Information Handout on all parties in the case along withthe complaint or removal notice and the other documents generated by the court uponfiling.

• If not already registered, each attorney in the case must register to become an e-filer atcand.uscourts.gov/ECF. Your ECF registration is valid for life in this district; please donot register more than once.

IMPORTANT NOTICE: by signing and submitting to the court a request for an ECF user id andpassword, you consent to entry of your email address into the court’s electronic service registryfor electronic service on you of all e-filed papers, pursuant to rules 77 and 5(b)(2)(d) of theFederal Rules of Civil Procedure.

• If you are a party and do not have an attorney and would like to e-file in the case, pleasevisit cand.uscourts.gov/ECF/proseregistration for instructions and information. Unlessand until the assigned judge has given you permission to e-file, you are required to fileand serve papers in hard copy (paper) form.

• Access dockets and documents using your PACER (Public Access to Court ElectronicRecords) account. If your firm already has a PACER account, please use that account. Itis not necessary to have individual PACER accounts for each user in your office. To setup an account, visit: pacer.gov or call (800) 676-6856.

ECF interactive tutorials, instructions for e-filing and other information are available at:cand.uscourts.gov/ECF.

http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/ecf

http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/ecf

http://cand.uscourts.gov/ECF/proseregistration

http://www.pacer.gov

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Consenting To The Jurisdiction Of A Magistrate Judge

San Jose

Oakland San Francisco

Eureka

Phyllis J. Hamilton, Chief Judge

Susan Y. Soong, Clerk of Court

Phyllis J. Hamilton, Chief Judge

Susan Y. Soong, Clerk of Court

San Francisco Courthouse 450 Golden Gate Avenue

San Francisco, California 94102 Phone: 415-522-2000 Fax: 415-522-3605

Oakland Courthouse 1301 Clay Street, Suite 400S Oakland, California 94612-5212

Phone: 510-637-3530 Fax: 510-637-3545

San Jose Courthouse 280 South First Street, Room 2112 San Jose, California 95113 Phone: 408-535-5364/5363 Fax: 408-535-5360

Eureka Courthouse 3140 Boeing Avenue

McKinleyville, California 95519 Phone: 707-445-3612 Fax: 707-441-1659

UNITED STATES DISTR ICT COURT


As you embark on civil litigation in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California̶whether as a party to a lawsuit or as an attorney̶I encourage you to fa-miliarize yourself with the range of services provided by the court’s mag-istrate judges and especially to con-sider consenting to have a magistrate judge handle all aspects of your case, up to and including dispositive mo-tions, jury or court trial and the entry of judgment.

The Northern District was one of the first federal trial courts in the country to assign a wide range of civil cases directly to magistrate judges upon filing. As a consequence, the magis-trate judges have direct experience with nearly all types of civil matters filed in our court. Because our court is very busy, agreeing to proceed before a magistrate judge often means that the case will be resolved more quickly than if the case remained before a district judge. If the case must be tried, your trial date will be more cer-tain and less likely to be continued to accommodate a felony jury trial. While consent is customarily given soon after a case is filed, parties may con-sent to have a magistrate judge pre-side over their case at any point in the proceedings. Every magistrate judge in the North-ern District underwent a highly com-petitive selection process and had years of experience before being ap-pointed to the bench.

As the biographies that follow demonstrate, each is active in law school teaching and continuing legal education for attorneys. Many have been appointed to important com-mittees within the circuit and national governing bodies and all are active in local court governance.

Each has been appointed based on detailed, confidential feedback from the bar and the community; each is equipped to handle the full range of issues presented to our court. Com-bined, the Northern District’s magis-trate judges bring thousands of hours of federal judicial experience to their work at our court.

Phyllis J. Hamilton Chief Judge

A MESSAGE FROM THE CHIEF JUDGE OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Under a law passed by Congress in 1976, the parties in a civil action in federal district court have the op-tion of consenting to have the case handled by a United States magistrate judge. Magistrate judg-es are appointed by the district judges of each district court fol-lowing a competitive merit selec-tion process and serve for terms of eight years. Magistrate judges may be reappointed only after a rigor-ous review of their work that in-cludes community input. In con-trast, district judges are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate and serve without term limits.

With the exception of certain types of cases (including capital habeas corpus cases, securities class ac-tions and bankruptcy appeals), when a civil action is filed in the Northern District of California, it is randomly assigned to either a dis-trict judge or a magistrate judge. For every case assigned to a mag-istrate judge, all parties (that is, all plaintiffs and all defendants) are asked to consent to have the case handled by a magistrate judge all the way through trial. The parties are encouraged to make a decision regarding magistrate judge juris-diction as soon as possible and no later than the first case manage-

ment conference (about 100 days after the case is filed). If any party does not consent, the case is reas-signed to a district judge.

If all parties consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction, then the as-signed magistrate judge presides over all aspects of the case and any appeals from magistrate judges’ rulings are made directly to the Court of Appeals, as are rulings by district judges.

Sometimes cases initially assigned to district judges are reassigned to magistrate judges because all par-ties consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction. The district judge may invite the parties at the initial case management conference to con-sider consenting to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge, and the par-ties may take that opportunity to do so.

The magistrate judges of the Northern District of California han-dle hundreds of civil cases every year. Each magistrate judge has an assigned courtroom and dedicated staff, including a courtroom depu-ty and law clerks. Because of their diverse professional experiences before and during their service as judges, this court’s magistrate judges are well-qualified to preside over all types of civil litigation.

HOW CONSENT JURISDICTION WORKS

When parties consent to have their case tried before a magistrate judge, they receive a date certain for trial. Because district judges must give priority to holding trials in felony criminal matters, district judges must frequently postpone scheduled civil trials. Because mag-istrate judges do not preside over felony criminal matters, they need not move their trial dates to ac-commodate criminal trials. This is one of the advantages of having a case handled by a magistrate

judge rather than a district judge. In fact, the court’s magistrate judg-es nearly always meet their sched-uled trial dates.

Also, civil cases assigned to magis-trate judges generally move along at a quicker pace. Because magis-trate judges’ trial dockets are gen-erally less crowded than those of district court judges, magistrate judges are often able to schedule trial within one year of the filing of the complaint.

POTENTIAL BENEFITS OF CONSENTING TO A MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Laws And Court Rules About United States Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction ...

Federal Magistrate Act of 1979, 28 U.S.C § 636(c)(1)

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 73

Northern District of California Civil Local Rule 73

MAGISTRATE JUDGE BIOGRAPHIES

San Francisco Courthouse Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler

Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James

Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Laporte

Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph Spero

Oakland Courthouse Magistrate Judge Donna Ryu

Magistrate Judge Kandis Westmore

San Jose Courthouse Magistrate Judge Nathanael Cousins

Magistrate Judge Howard Lloyd

Eureka Courthouse Magistrate Judge Nandor Vadas

Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler has presided over and settled hundreds of cases in many subject areas, including intellectual property, civil rights, employment, and business disputes. Judge Beeler was an assistant U.S. attorney in the Northern District, prosecuting complex white-collar cases with parallel civil components. She was the Office’s Professional Responsibility Officer and Deputy Chief of the Criminal Division. She was a law clerk to the Hon. Cecil F. Poole, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and the Civil Appeals Division Chief at the Ninth Circuit’s Office of Staff Attorneys. She trained as a mediator with the Northern District’s ADR Program, the Federal Judicial Center, and Harvard Law School. Judge Beeler is one of four national judicial liaisons to the U.S. Depart-ment of Justice/Office of Defender Services Joint Electronic Technology Working Group. She chairs the Northern District’s Criminal Practice Committee. Judge Beeler was President of the Federal Bar Association, co-chair of the Lawyer Representatives to the Ninth Circuit, a board member of the Bar Association of San Francisco, and a member of the Ninth Circuit’s Jury Trial Improvement Committee. In 2012, she was named one of The Recorder’s “2012 Women Leaders in Law.” Judge Beeler teaches civil trial practice at U.C. Berkeley School of Law and taught Criminal Procedure at U.C. Hastings College of the Law. She led rule-of-law projects in Indonesia, Vietnam, Cambodia, Jordan, the Philippines, and Ukraine. Judge Beeler graduated with honors from the University of Washington School of Law, where she was Order of the Coif and an Articles Editor on the Washington Law Review. She received her A.B. with honors from Bowdoin College.

MAGISTRATE JUDGE LAUREL BEELER

San Francisco Courthouse

Year Appointed: 2010

Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley has presided over a variety of civil cases at all stages of the proceedings, from motions to dismiss through jury trial. She has also served as a settlement judge in nearly every type of federal litigation.

Just prior to taking the bench, Judge Corley was a partner at Kerr & Wagstaffe, LLP in San Francisco as a civil litigator with an emphasis on federal practice. She represented individuals, government entities, and institutions as plaintiffs and defendants in a variety of matters that in-cluded trademark, copyright, patent, constitutional law, defamation, malicious prosecution, class actions, contract and probate.

From 1998 through 2009 Judge Corley served as a career law clerk to the Honorable Charles R. Breyer. She also served on the Northern Dis-trict of California Alternative Dispute Resolution mediation and early neutral evaluation panels from 2006 though her appointment.

Judge Corley received her undergraduate degree from the University of California Berkeley and her J.D. from Harvard Law School, magna cum laude, where she was an editor and Articles Chair of the Harvard Law Review. Upon graduation she served as a law clerk to the Honorable Robert E. Keeton of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. She then practiced complex commercial litigation and white collar criminal defense at Goodwin, Procter LLP in Boston and was a litigation associate at Coblentz, Patch, Duffy & Bass LLP in San Francisco before joining Judge Breyer in 1998.

MAGISTRATE JUDGE JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY San Francisco Courthouse


Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James has served with the Court for over 20 years. During that time, she has presided over numerous cases and conducted thousands of settlement conferences. Outside the court-room, she teaches a number of classes at three Bay Area law schools: University of California Hastings, University of San Francisco, and Gold-en Gate University. She also taught at the California Judicial Education and Research College and the University of Paris, Nanterre.

A 1978 graduate of the University of San Francisco Law School, she served as director of the Small Claims Court Education Project in the Consumer Fraud Unit of the San Francisco District Attorney’s Office. She went on to serve as a deputy public defender in San Francisco, staff attorney for the National Labor Relations Board, and a supervising attorney in the San Francisco City Attorney’s Office.

Judge James then served as a Commissioner in the San Francisco Su-perior Court presiding over discovery and family law proceedings for six years. She was appointed as a magistrate judge to the Northern Dis-trict in 1994. Judge James served as the Northern District’s Chief Magis-trate Judge from 2009-2012. In 2010, the San Francisco Trial Lawyers Association recognized Judge James with the “Federal Jurist of the Year” award. She currently serves as the Northern District’s Alternative Dispute Resolution Magistrate Judge, in charge of coordinating the alternative dispute resolution program with the Court.

She also volunteers as a mock trial judge for all grades of students and serves as a mentor to law students.

MAGISTRATE JUDGE MARIA-ELENA JAMES San Francisco Courthouse


Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim brings a broad range of civil and criminal litigation experience to the bench, with a special emphasis on civil cas-es in federal court. Judge Kim graduated from Princeton University and from Stanford Law School. Upon graduation from law school, she served as law clerk to United States District Judge Spencer Williams of this Court. She then entered private civil litigation practice in Palo Alto. From 1995-99, Judge Kim served as Associate and Assistant Dean for Student Affairs at Stanford Law School, after which she returned to private civil litiga-tion practice and became a partner with the law firm of GCA Law Part-ners, LLP in 2002. She practiced at GCA Law Partners until she joined the Court in 2015. Judge Kim’s recent professional activities outside of regular civil litiga-tion practice have included service in the following capacities: Co-Director of the Trial Advocacy Program and Lecturer in Law at Stanford Law School beginning in 2014; the Interim Title IX Coordinator for Stanford University in 2013 and 2014; Judge Pro Tem for Santa Clara County Superior Court from 2010 to the present; and Volunteer Depu-ty District Attorney for Santa Clara County for 14 weeks in 2010.

MAGISTRATE JUDGE SALLIE KIM San Francisco Courthouse


Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte has presided over numerous civil cases through trial or other disposition, including patent, trade-mark, copyright, employment, civil rights and environmental cases and has conducted over 1000 settlement conferences.

A 1982 graduate of Yale Law School and a Marshall Scholar, she clerked for the Honorable Marilyn Hall Patel of this Court. She was a partner at the boutique litigation firm of Turner & Brorby and an Ad-ministrative Law Judge for the California Department of Insurance. In 1996, she began serving as Chief of Special Litigation for the San Fran-cisco City Attorney’s Office, and was named a Lawyer of the Year by California Lawyer.

Judge Laporte serves on the editorial board of the Federal Courts Law Review, the Board of Governors for the Northern California Chapter of the Association of Business Trial Lawyers and the Judicial Advisory Board of The Sedona Conference.

Judge Laporte is the immediate past Chief Magistrate Judge and has served as the Court’s Alternative Dispute Resolution Magistrate Judge and chaired the Rules Committee’s E-Discovery Subcommittee. At the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Laporte has chaired the Magis-trate Judge Executive Board and served on the Jury Trial Improvement Committee. She regularly speaks at legal conferences and judicial edu-cation programs on patent litigation, jury trials, e-discovery, employ-ment law, settlement, and other topics and has authored articles on patent litigation, settlement and e-discovery.

MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

San Francisco Courthouse


Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero has presided as trial judge in criminal and civil cases in a variety of subject areas, including patent, employment, civil rights, commercial contract, trademark, and federal misdemeanor cases. He has also served as a settlement judge in over 1500 cases.

Judge Spero serves on the Court's Executive Committee, as Chair of the Court's Reentry Committee and of the Diversion Committee, and serves as Liaison Judge for Pretrial Services and Probation. He also serves on various circuit and national committees including the Magistrate Judg-es Advisory Group of the Administrative Office of the Courts, and on the Capital Case Committee of the Ninth Circuit.

A 1981 graduate of Columbia University School of Law, he clerked for the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. He worked as an associate at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, and as associate then partner at Coblentz, Cahen, McCabe & Breyer (now Coblentz, Patch, Duffy & Bass).

While in private practice, he trained as a mediator at Harvard Law School and served as a mediator in the Northern District’s Alternative Dispute Resolution Program. He also served as a Judge Pro-Tem for the San Francisco County Superior Court.

Judge Spero served as pro bono counsel in a variety of cases. He re-ceived the Thurgood Marshall Award from the Bar Association of the City of New York.

CHIEF MAGISTRATE JUDGE JOSEPH C. SPERO San Francisco Courthouse


Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu has presided over consent cases in a wide variety of fields, including commercial disputes, patent and other intellectual property, employment, civil rights, insurance, personal injury, environmental, maritime, and constitutional law. She conducts settle-ment conferences in all major practice areas, and manages discovery in complex matters, including multi-district litigation. Judge Ryu has served on numerous court committees, including Local Rules, Subcommittee on E-Discovery, and Pro Bono Projects, among others. Prior to taking the bench, Judge Ryu was a Clinical Professor of Law at U.C. Hastings, and before that at Golden Gate University Law School. Her courses included instruction in negotiation, pretrial and trial techniques, employment law, and legal ethics. Judge Ryu began her career as a commercial litigator at a large San Fran-cisco firm before joining an Oakland-based firm specializing in class ac-tions, and later founding her own small firm. She has extensive experi-ence in complex civil litigation, including discovery, motions and trials. She has been honored as a California Lawyer of the Year in Employment Law. She is the recipient of the Asian American Bar Association’s Joe Morozumi Award for Exceptional Legal Advocacy, the Rutter Award for Excellence in Teaching, and the National Asian Pacific American Bar As-sociation's Trailblazers Award. She co-designed a national training insti-tute on class actions, and has written and lectured in the areas of em-ployment law, e-discovery, pretrial practice, attorneys’ fees, class actions, and professionalism. Judge Ryu graduated with honors from Yale University, and received her law degree in from U.C. Berkeley Law School, where she continues to teach as a Lecturer.

MAGISTRATE JUDGE DONNA M. RYU Oakland Courthouse


Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore has presided over dozens of civil cases and criminal matters. She is a current member of the Northern District’s Community Outreach and Security Committees. She also serves on the Court’s Conviction Alternative and Reentry Programs.

Judge Westmore received her Bachelor of Arts Degree in Psychology from the University of California, Berkeley in 1989 and her law degree from the University of San Francisco School of Law in 1997. During law school, Judge Westmore served as a judicial extern to the Honorable Saundra Brown Armstrong of this Court.

She began her legal career at an Oakland-based boutique law firm spe-cializing in plaintiffs’ civil rights litigation. In 1999, she joined the Oak-land City Attorney’s Office as a Deputy City Attorney, initially prosecut-ing code enforcement and drug nuisance abatement cases and serving as advice counsel to City Departments. She later served as general liti-gation trial counsel, then as law and motion and appellate counsel, rep-resenting the City and its employees in cases involving civil rights, per-sonal injury, debt collection, inverse condemnation, labor and employ-ment, and complex litigation, in both state and federal court.

In 2011, Judge Westmore served as President-Elect of the Alameda County Bar Association (ACBA) and represented clients in family law cases through the ACBA Volunteer Legal Services Corporation’s Pro Bo-no Program, which assists low-income individuals who otherwise can-not afford an attorney. She is now President-Elect of the Earl Warren American Inn of Court.

MAGISTRATE JUDGE KANDIS A. WESTMORE Oakland Courthouse


Magistrate Judge Nathanael Cousins has his chambers in San Jose, but he has served in each courthouse in the Northern District of California, from Salinas to Eureka.

He joined the Court from the U.S. Department of Justice, where he worked as an Assistant U.S. Attorney (San Jose and San Francisco offic-es) and Antitrust Division Trial Attorney (San Francisco). In those posi-tions, he had criminal jury trials before many of the Judges of this Court. He was part of the team that prosecuted global price-fixing cartels in memory chip markets. He also coordinated Operation Ceasefire, a com-munity program to reduce gang violence in Monterey County.

Immediately before joining the Department of Justice, he worked as a civil litigation associate and then partner in the Chicago office of Kirk-land & Ellis, and before that he was a litigation associate in the Los An-geles office of Greenberg Glusker. His civil litigation cases focused on antitrust, class actions, consumer fraud, securities fraud, and civil rights. He was pro bono class counsel for inmates at an Illinois state prison.

Judge Cousins graduated from the University of California, Hastings College of the Law. After law school, he clerked for the Hon. F.A. Little, Jr., Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court, Western District of Louisiana. He received his undergraduate degree in political science from Stan-ford. While in school, he studied abroad in Russia and the Netherlands.

Judge Cousins has taught legal writing, moot court, and antitrust law at Hastings, and participates regularly in moot court and trial training pro-grams at Bay Area law schools. He also coaches basketball and soccer.

MAGISTRATE JUDGE NATHANAEL COUSINS

San Jose Courthouse


Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd has tried a multitude of civil cases and criminal misdemeanors, ruled on hundreds of discovery disputes and case-dispositive motions and recently empaneled two grand juries.

Judge Lloyd obtained his undergraduate degree at the College of Wil-liam and Mary, graduating Phi Beta Kappa, and─after military service─earned his law degree from the University of Michigan Law School.

For the next 30 years he worked as a trial and appellate lawyer for a large San Jose law firm. He first-chaired about 50 trials, mostly in the areas of employment, civil rights, contract, and intellectual property. As his firm’s appellate specialist, he wrote about 100 appeals, argued fre-quently at the California Courts of Appeal, and appeared three times before the California Supreme Court. After leaving the firm, he worked for two years as an independent ADR provider.

While in private practice, Judge Lloyd was selected for voluntary service as an Early Neutral Evaluator (N.D. CA), mediator (California Court of Ap-peals), and Settlement Judge Pro Tem (Santa Clara County Superior Court). He was a frequent presenter at continuing education courses for attorneys, usually speaking about employment law or business torts.

Since taking the bench, Judge Lloyd has continued speaking to bar as-sociations and other groups, served on court committees as well as on the Ninth Circuit Committee on Magistrate Judges Education, and in 2010 guided the establishment of the “Help Desk” for pro se litigants at the San Jose Courthouse. For many years he also taught a seminar at Santa Clara University Law School.

MAGISTRATE JUDGE HOWARD R. LLOYD San Jose Courthouse


Magistrate Judge Nandor J. Vadas has presided over a wide variety of criminal and civil cases, including civil rights, employment, ADA, Indian law, and Endangered Species Act cases. Judge Vadas maintains his chambers in Eureka but also presides over cases in San Francisco. Judge Vadas also conducts a petty offense and misdemeanor calendar on the Hopland Indian Reservation in Mendocino County.

Judge Vadas graduated from the University of California, Santa Cruz and U.C. Hastings College of the Law. Before taking the bench, Judge Vadas served for 20 years as a prosecutor in Northern California, working at both the federal and state (San Francisco & Humboldt Counties) levels.

As a United States magistrate judge, Judge Vadas established the ac-claimed early settlement program for prisoner civil rights cases serving California prisoners housed at Pelican Bay State Prison and, later, all state prisons in the Northern District and some in the Eastern District of California. He has taught criminal justice courses at the Police Academy at College of the Redwoods and has served on the Magistrate Judges’ Advisory Group to the Judicial Conference of the United States. Judge Vadas currently serves on the Pro Se Litigation Committee of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and on this Court’s judicial committees on Technology, Security and Community Outreach.

All new civil and criminal actions arising in the counties of Del Norte, Lake, Humboldt and Mendocino are assigned directly to Judge Vadas, subject to consent under 28 USC § 636(c)(1). For the convenience of parties in the Bay Area, Judge Vadas often holds proceedings by video-conference and in the San Francisco courthouse as well as in Eureka.

MAGISTRATE JUDGE NANDOR J. VADAS

Eureka-McKinleyville Courthouse


If you have additional questions about magistrate judge jurisdiction, please contact the Clerk’s Office:

Phone: 415-522-2045

Fax: 415-522-2176

This brochure is available on the Court’s website: cand.uscourts.gov.

Print copies are available at all of the Court’s four courthouses.

The magistrate judge portraits in this brochure

were taken by Roslyn Banish.

The courthouse photos were taken by court staff members.

Date of printing: February 18, 2016