Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Cosco v. Gemmit

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


January 29, 2009

JOHN COSCO, PLAINTIFF,
v.
VICTORIA GEMMIT, DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Lonny R. Suko United States District Judge

SCHEDULING ORDER

A telephonic status conference was held in the above-entitled matter on January 29, 2009. Plaintiff, John Cosco, appeared pro se; Anthony P. O'Brien, Esq. participated on behalf of Defendant. The Court having reviewed the documents in the file and discussed the adoption of a scheduling order with counsel, now enters the following Scheduling Order:

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Pursuant to Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this schedule "shall not be modified except upon a showing of good cause and by leave [of the Court]." Rule 16(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides for sanctions for failure to obey the Scheduling Order.

2. A motion to amend pleadings or add named parties shall be filed and served no later than August 18, 2009.

3. The parties are reminded to follow all Federal and Local Rules, in particular E.D. Cal. LR 78-230, which governs motion practice. The Court may choose to disregard any materials not timely filed and motions not noted for hearing in compliance with the rules.

4. Pursuant to Rule 26(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Plaintiff shall provide all disclosures regarding experts to the Defendants no later than July 29, 2009. Defendants shall provide all Rule 26(a)(2) disclosures to the Plaintiff no later than August 28, 2009. The parties shall identify any rebuttal experts and provide the Rule 26(a)(2) reports of those experts no later than September 28, 2009.

5. All discovery shall be completed on or before October 27, 2009. All written discovery shall be served no later than forty days prior to the discovery cut-off date. Any motion to compel discovery shall also be filed and served prior to the discovery cut-off date. THE PARTIES SHALL FILE NO DISCOVERY EXCEPT THOSE PORTIONS NECESSARY TO SUPPORT MOTIONS. If the parties need a ruling as to any discovery question and wish to avoid the time and expense of a written motion, they may obtain an expedited ruling through a telephone conference call to the Court at 509-573-6600.

6. All dispositive motions shall be filed and served on or before November 10, 2009 . This deadline may only be altered by Order of the Court, for good cause shown.

(a) The motion must strictly comply with all requirements of E.D. Cal. Local Rules 7.1 and 78-230 and 56-260.

(b) Counsel should make evidentiary objections as discussed in Local Rule 56.260(b) within the parties' statement of facts as opposed to filing a separate motion to strike.

(c) All materials filed in support of, or in opposition to, a motion for summary judgment must strictly comply with the requirements of Rule 56(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Orr v. Bank of America, 285 F.3d 764 (9th Cir. 2002).

(d) The Court's copies of any exhibits submitted in support of, or in opposition to, a dispositive motion shall be bound and tabbed.

(e) Failure to comply with the above requirements may result in the Court disregarding any non-complying filings.

The District Court Executive is directed to file this Order and provide copies to counsel.

20090129

© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.