# Opinion

> District Court, E.D. California · April 21, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11381104

## Case

- **Full name:** Terence Bernard Beasley Jr. v. United States Department of the Air Force, Beale Air Force Base FOIA Office
- **Court:** District Court, E.D. California
- **Decided:** April 21, 2026
- **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/11381104

## Opinion text

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 TERENCE BERNARD BEASLEY JR., Case No. 2:25-cv-03247-DC-CSK (PS)
12 Plaintiff,
13 v. PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER
14 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
THE AIR FORCE, BEALE AIR FORCE
15 BASE FOIA OFFICE,
16 Defendants.
17
18 READ THIS ORDER CAREFULLY. IT CONTAINS IMPORTANT DATES THAT
19 THE COURT WILL STRICTLY ENFORCE AND WITH WHICH ALL COUNSEL AND
20 PARTIES, INCLUDING THOSE PROCEEDING WITHOUT COUNSEL, MUST COMPLY.
21 FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE TERMS OF THIS ORDER MAY RESULT IN THE
22 IMPOSITION OF MONETARY AND ALL OTHER APPROPRIATE SANCTIONS.
23 After considering the parties’ joint status report (ECF No. 17), the Court issues the
24 following pretrial scheduling order.
25 I. NATURE OF THE CASE
26 The following summary of the case comes from the parties’ joint status report:
27 “Plaintiff Terence B. Beasley Jr. brings this action under the Freedom of Information Act,
28 5 U.S.C. § 522 et seq., as amended (‘FOIA’), against Defendant United States
1 Department of the Air Force (‘Defendant’) for allegedly failing to provide a verbatim
2 transcript of Plaintiff’s administrative discharge board hearing that was requested
3 through FOIA requests.” (ECF No. 17 at 1.)
4 II. SERVICE OF PROCESS, JOINDER OF PARTIES, PLEADINGS AMENDMENT
5 Defendant has been served. (ECF No. 4.) On January 30, 2026, Defendant
6 answered the Complaint. (ECF No. 9.) On March 5, 2026, Plaintiff filed the First
7 Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 12) (“FAC”). Although the FAC was untimely filed and
8 Plaintiff did not seek leave of court or the opposing party’s written consent to file the
9 FAC, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a), the Court accepted the FAC as the operative complaint
10 in this action. 3/16/2026 Minute Order (ECF No. 16). Defendant answered the FAC on
11 April 13, 2026. (ECF No. 18.)
12 Although Plaintiff named Beale Air Force Base FOIA Office in the original
13 Complaint as a defendant (ECF No. 1 at 2), the FAC names only the United States
14 Department of the Air Force as a defendant. FAC at 2. Accordingly, the Court
15 DISMISSES Defendant Beale Air Force Base FOIA Office. No further service, joinder of
16 parties, or amendments to pleadings is permitted except with leave of Court, and only
17 after good cause is shown.
18 III. JURISDICTION/VENUE
19 The parties state that the Court has federal question jurisdiction under the
20 Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552 et seq. (ECF No. 17 at 2), which is found to
21 be proper. Venue is proper and undisputed. (Id.)
22 IV. DISCOVERY DEADLINES
23 In the parties’ joint status report, the parties do not request taking discovery or the
24 imposition of any discovery-related deadlines. (See ECF No. 17.) Instead, “the parties
25 agree that the case should be resolved on cross-motions for summary judgment without
26 need for trial or fact finding by the Court.” (Id. at 2.) Because this case is brought under
27 the Freedom of Information Act, will be resolved on cross-motions for summary
28 judgment, the parties do not request taking discovery, and based on the district court’s
1 “wide latitude in controlling discovery,” discovery is stayed pending the ruling on the
2 parties’ summary judgment motions. Lane v. Dept. of the Interior, 523 F.3d 1128, 1134-
3 35 (9th Cir. 2008) (in FOIA and Privacy Act case, affirming district court’s deferral of
4 discovery until after resolution of summary judgment) (quoting White v. City of San
5 Diego, 605 F.2d 455, 461 (9th Cir.1979) (internal quotations omitted)); see, e.g., Huene
6 v. U.S. Dept. of the Treasury, 2012 WL 1681940, at *3 (E.D. Cal. May 14, 2012);
7 Schulze v. F.B.I., 2011 WL 129716, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2011); Lawyers’ Comm. for
8 Civil Rights of S.F. Bay Area v. U.S. Dept. of the Treasury, 534 F. Supp. 2d 1126, 1131
9 (N.D. Cal. 2008).
10 V. MOTIONS
11 The parties have agreed the case should be resolved on cross motions for
12 summary judgment. Plaintiff’s opening summary judgment motion must be filed by
13 August 21, 2026.1 Defendant’s opposition and cross motion for summary judgment
14 must be filed by September 21, 2026. Plaintiff’s reply and opposition must be filed by
15 October 21, 2026. Defendant’s reply must be filed by November 13, 2026. The parties’
16 cross summary judgment motions shall be heard on December 15, 2026 at 10:00 a.m.,
17 in Courtroom 25.
18 Dispositive motions must be filed following the procedures of Local Rules 230 and
19 260, and Judge Kim’s Civil Standing Orders. Counsel and parties proceeding without
20 counsel should pay particular attention to the rules for Statements of Undisputed Facts
21 for motions for summary judgment, cross motions for summary judgment, and general
22 brief requirements in the Local Rules and Judge Kim’s Civil Standing Orders. Judge Kim
23 generally hears civil motions on Tuesdays at 10:00 a.m. This paragraph does not apply
24 to motions for continuances, temporary restraining orders, or other emergency
25 applications, for which the Court may set a special briefing schedule, if necessary or
26

27 1 For cases with pro se parties, the assigned magistrate judge hears all non-dispositive
and dispositive pretrial motions, including motions for summary judgment. See Local
28 Rule 302(c)(21).
1 appropriate.
2 VI. SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE
3 The parties indicate they anticipate entering in settlement negotiations. (ECF No.
4 17 at 3.) If the parties want to conduct a settlement conference with a magistrate judge,
5 they are to contact the undersigned’s courtroom deputy at (916) 930-4187 or
6 awaldrop@caed.uscourts.gov, to inquire as to the availability of another magistrate
7 judge for a settlement conference. Parties should communicate the specific time frame
8 when they would like the settlement conference held.
9 VIII. SCHEDULE SUMMARY
10 A summary of the schedule is provided below.
11
12 Event Deadline Ordered
13
Plaintiff’s Summary Judgment Motion August 21, 2026
Filed By
14
Defendant’s Opposition/Cross Motion September 21, 2026
15
for Summary Judgment Filed By
Plaintiff’s Reply/Opposition Filed By October 21, 2026
16
Defendant’s Reply Filed By November 13, 2026
17
Cross Motions for Summary December 15, 2026 at 10:00 a.m.,
18 Judgment Heard By Courtroom 25
19 IX. MODIFICATIONS OF THIS SCHEDULING ORDER
20 This case schedule will become final without further order of the Court unless
21 written objections are filed within fourteen (14) days of the entry of this order. The parties
22 are reminded that pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4), this order shall
23 not be modified except by leave of Court upon a showing of “good cause.” See Johnson
24 v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604 (9th Cir. 1992). Agreement by the parties
25 pursuant to a stipulation does not constitute good cause. Nor does the unavailability of
26 witnesses or counsel, except in extraordinary circumstances, constitute good cause.
27 Requests or stipulations to continue dispositive motion deadlines must establish good
28
1 || cause and are not granted lightly.
2 Any request or stipulation to modify this scheduling order must set forth the
3 | following:
4 1. the existing due date or hearing date;
5 2. whether there have been prior requests for extensions, and whether these were
6 granted or denied by the Court; and
7 3. specific, concrete reasons supporting good cause for granting the extension. For
8 example, if the reason for the requested extension is that it “will promote
9 settlement,” the requesting party or parties must indicate the status of negotiation
10 efforts (e.g., whether a mediator has been selected, a mediation has been
11 scheduled, etc.).
12 .
13 Dated: April 21, 2026 OC iy $ \U
14 CHI S00 KIM
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
15
16 8, beas.3247.25.pso
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11381104. Public record. Not legal advice.