# Brown v. Lieutenant Bass

> District Court, N.D. California · January 30, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10791099

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, N.D. California
- **Decided:** January 30, 2025
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10791099

## Opinion text

1
2
3
4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7 DAVID BROWN, Case No. 23-cv-00671-JST

8 Plaintiff,
ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFFS TO
9 v. FILE RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO
10 LIEUTENANT BASS, et al., MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER AND
ESTABLISH BELLWETHER CASE;
11 Defendants. DIRECTIONS TO DEFENDANTS
12 GABRIEL YOUNG,
Case No. 24-cv-02621-JST
13 Plaintiff,

14 v.

15 BASS, et al.,
16 Defendants.

17 MICHAEL LARUE BROWN, Case No. 24-cv-03599-JST
18 Plaintiff,
19 v.

20 BASS, et al.,
21 Defendants.
22 J. ISAAC G. SIERRA, Case No. 24-cv-05348-JST
23 Plaintiff,
24 v.
25 C. BASS , et al.,
26 Defendants.

27
1 RUBEN DURAN YEPEZ, Case No. 24-cv-06262-JST
Plaintiff,
2
v.
3

4 C. BASS, et al.,
Defendants.
5

6 HERIBERTO HERNANDEZ DELOSSA, et
al., Case No. 24-cv-06285-JST
7
Plaintiffs,
8
v.
9
BASS, et al.,
10 Defendants.
11 GUILLERMO P. HERNANDEZ, Case No. 24-cv-06286-JST
Plaintiff,
12
v.
13

14 C. BASS, et al.,
Defendants.
15
16 SERGIO A. JIMENEZ, Case No. 24-cv-06428-JST
Plaintiff,
17

v.
18

19 BASS, et al.,
Defendants.
20

21 DANIEL DOMINGUEZ, Case No. 24-cv-06420-JST
Plaintiff,
22
v.
23

24 C. BASS, et al.,
Defendants.
25
26
27
1 PATRICIO PULIDO SEGURA, Case No. 24-cv-06667-JST
Plaintiff,
2
v.
3

4 C. BASS, et al.,
Defendants.
5

6 ALFONSO MEJIA,
Case No. 24-cv-07502-JST
Plaintiff,
7

v.
8

9 M. TAYLOR, et al.,
Defendants.
10

11
These related pro se civil rights cases concern an October 8, 2022 strip search that
12
occurred at San Quentin Rehabilitation Center. Defendants have filed an administrative motion to
13
modify scheduling orders and to establish a bellwether case. See, e.g., C No. 24-cv-02621 JST,
14
Young v. Bass, ECF No. 15. In this motion, Defendants request that (1) the scheduling order in
15
each case be vacated and replaced with a scheduling order that permits the parties to engage in
16
discovery until April 25, 2024; (2) C No. 4:24-cv-06667 JST, Pulido Segura v. Bass, be used as a
17
bellwether case to guide resolution of the subsequent cases; (3) the remaining cases be
18
administratively stayed pending the outcome of Pulido Segura; and (4) the dispositive motion
19
deadline for Pulido Segura for Friday, May 30, 2025. Id.
20
The Court ORDERS each plaintiff to file a response to Defendants’ administrative motion
21
by February 28, 2025. In light of the plaintiffs’ pro se status and to assist the plaintiffs in
22
preparing their responses, the Court explains what it means to designate a bellwether case.
23
What is a bellwether case? Generally speaking, when there are a group of similar cases,
24
courts may choose one of the cases as a bellwether case. The bellwether case is considered a test
25
case to “test out” the claims, and is typically used to facilitate settlement in the other similar cases
26
by allowing the parties to determine the strength of the claims. See Briggs v. Merck Sharp &
27
Dohme, 796 F.3d 1038, 1051 (9th Cir. 2015). Proceeding first with a bellwether case can
1 potentially conserve resources, limit duplication of discovery, and speed up the litigation process.
2 The bellwether case is resolved first. The remaining cases are resolved after the bellwether case
3 because nothing happens in the remaining cases until the bellwether case is concluded.
4 Why a bellwether case here? These cases involve the same event – the October 8, 2022
strip search. These cases likely involve much of the same evidence and many of the same legal
5
principles. It can therefore be beneficial to designate one of these eleven cases as a “bellwether
6
case” and to apply what is learned from the bellwether case in the other cases. Once the strengths
7
and weaknesses of the bellwether case are known, it is often easier to settle the remaining cases,
8
and easier to try any cases that do not resolve by settlement.
9
How does a bellwether case work? A bellwether case proceeds first while the other cases
10
are stayed. The bellwether case goes through discovery; and then, if appropriate, dispositive
11
motions. Discovery is the process by which the parties request and provide evidence to support or
12
refute the claims alleged in the complaint. In pro se cases, dispositive motions, also referred to as
13
summary judgment motions, are usually filed by the defendants. Generally speaking, defendants
14
file a dispositive motion if they believe that, even if the Court believes the plaintiff’s version of
15
the facts, the defendants are still entitled to judgment in their favor under the applicable law. If the
16
Court denies the dispositive motion, the case then goes to trial. The case could also settle at any
17
time, if the parties agree to do so. The outcome of the bellwether case is not binding on the
18 other cases. The outcome of the bellwether case applies only to the parties to that particular case.
19 The results of the bellwether case are used in the other cases only to provide information as an aid
20 to settlement. See Briggs, 796 F.3d at 1051.
21 What happens to the other cases? While the bellwether case is proceeding, all the other
22 cases are administratively stayed. An administrative stay means that the case is paused. No action
23 is taken in these cases during the administrative stay. An administrative stay does not affect the
24 parties’ rights. After the conclusion of the bellwether case, the court reopens the stayed cases, and
25 these cases go through discovery, and then dispositive motions and trial, if appropriate.
26 The Court ORDERS as follows.
27 1. The Court ORDERS each plaintiff to file a response to Defendants’ administrative
1 with or oppose Defendants’ motion. At a minimum, each plaintiff must answer the following
2 || questions:
3 - Question 1. Does the plaintiff agree to Defendants’ request for a case to be
selected as a bellwether case, with the understanding that, if his case is not the
4 bellwether case, his case will be decided later than the bellwether case?
5 - Question 2. If the plaintiff agrees to the selection of a bellwether case, does the
plaintiff agree to have C No. 4:24-cv-06667 JST, Pulido Segura v. Bass, serve as
6 the bellwether case? If the plaintiff does not agree with Pulido Segura serving
7 as the bellwether case, which case should be the bellwether case?
- Question 3. If the plaintiff agrees to the selection of a bellwether case, does the
8 plaintiff agree to the deadlines proposed by Defendants: April 25, 2025
discovery deadline, and May 30, 2025 dispositive motion deadline? If the
9 plaintiff does not agree with the proposed deadlines, what discovery and
10 dispositive motion deadlines does plaintiff propose?
11 Each plaintiff may also raise any other issues or concerns regarding Defendants’ motion in their
a 12 response.

13 2. Defendants should not file a reply to the plaintiffs’ responses to their motions.

v 14 || After reviewing plaintiffs’ responses, the Court will determine whether a reply is needed from
O
15 || Defendants, and what specific issues should be addressed in the reply.
QO 16 3. The Court ORDERS Defendants to file their administrative motion in C No. 23-

17 00671 JST, David Brown v. Bass, as they appear to have inadvertently omitted filing their

18 administrative motion in that case.
19 IT IS SO ORDERED.

20 Dated: January 30, 2025
71 JON S. TIGAR
22 nited States District Judge
23
24
25
26
27
28

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10791099. Public record. Not legal advice.