The opinion of the court was delivered by: Garland E. Burrell, Jr. United States District Judge
STATUS (PRETRIAL SCHEDULING) ORDER
The status (pretrial scheduling) conference scheduled for September 15, 2008, is vacated since the parties' Joint Status Report ("JSR") indicates that the following Order should issue.
The status orders filed on May 5, 2008 and June 18, 2008 contained notices issued under Rule 4 (m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that unserved Defendants could be dismissed absence a showing of good cause justifying extension of Rule 4 (m)'s 120-day service period.
Since Plaintiff has not made this showing, Defendant Mike Doe is dismissed without prejudice.
JOINDER OF ADDITIONAL PARTIES/AMENDMENT
Plaintiff states in the JSR that "Plaintiff still anticipates identifying" and joining certain defendants, but Plaintiff has not provided sufficient information on why Plaintiff has not already identified and joined the referenced defendant. JSR at 3. Justification should have been provided. Since it was not provided, no further service, joinder of parties or amendments to pleadings is permitted, except with leave of Court, good cause having been shown.
All discovery shall be completed by May 4, 2009. In this context, "completed" means that all discovery shall have been conducted so that all depositions have been taken and any disputes relative to discovery shall have been resolved by appropriate orders, if necessary, and, where discovery has been ordered, the order has been complied with or, alternatively, the time allowed for such compliance shall have expired.*fn2
Each party shall comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)'s initial expert witness disclosure and report requirements on or before January 3, 2009, and with any rebuttal expert disclosure authorized under the Rule on or before February 3, 2009.
The last hearing date for motions shall be July 6, 2009, at 9:00 a.m.*fn3
Motions shall be filed in accordance with Local Rule 78-230(b). Opposition papers shall be filed in accordance with Local Rule 78-230(c). Failure to comply with this local rule may be deemed consent to the motion and the Court may dispose of the motion summarily. Brydges v. Lewis, 18 F.3d 651, 652-53 (9th Cir. 1994). Further, failure to timely oppose a summary judgment motion may result in the granting of that motion if the movant shifts the burden to the non-movant ...