The opinion of the court was delivered by: Garland E. Burrell, Jr. United States District Judge
The status (pretrial scheduling) conference scheduled for March 30, 2009, is vacated since the parties' Joint Status Report ("JSR") indicates that the following Order should issue.
DISMISSAL OF DOE DEFENDANTS
Since Plaintiffs have not justified Doe defendants remaining in this action, Does J1 to J20, Does E1 to E20, and Does M1 to M5 are dismissed. See Order Setting Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference filed December 1, 2008, at 2 n.2 (indicating that if Plaintiff or Plaintiffs fail to set forth in the JSR a date and specific information by when the identities of any "Doe" defendants are expected to be discovered, any claim against such Doe defendants would be deemed abandoned and a dismissal order would follow).
SERVICE, JOINDER OF ADDITIONAL PARTIES, AMENDMENT
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 January 22, 2010. 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 expert witness disclosure requirements on or before August 21, 2009, and with any rebuttal expert disclosure authorized under the Rule on or before September 21, 2009.
The last hearing date for motions shall be March 22, 2010, 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 to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact remains for trial. Cf. Marshall v. Gates, 44 F.3d 722 (9th Cir. 1995).
Absent highly unusual circumstances, reconsideration of a motion is appropriate only where:
(1) The Court is presented with newly discovered evidence that could not reasonably have been discovered prior to the filing of the ...