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 March 30, 2009 , is vacated since the parties' Joint Status Report ("JSR") indicates that the following Order should issue.
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.
Defendants shall file the administrative record no later than April 22, 2009. The parties dispute whether discovery outside the administrative record should be allowed. A party desiring discovery must file a motion that seeks specified discovery, and the factual and legal basis therefor, to be heard no later than May 18, 2009, at 9:00 a.m.
If discovery is permitted, all discovery shall be completed by October 15, 2009. In this context, "completed" means 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.*fn1
No expert witnesses will be allowed since the parties indicated in their JSR that they "do not contemplate using experts"; therefore, no disclosure date is provided.
The last hearing date for motions shall be January 11, 2010, at 9:00 a.m.*fn2
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 ...