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.

Ulm v. Patterson Dental Supply

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SACRAMENTO DIVISION


April 21, 2009

JAYNIE ULM, PLAINTIFF,
v.
PATTERSON DENTAL SUPPLY, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, AND DOES 1 THROUGH 100, INCLUSIVE, DEFENDANTS.

STIPULATED REQUEST TO MODIFY THE SCHEDULING ORDER REGARDING EXPERT DISCLOSURES AND ORDER THEREON

Defendant Patterson Dental Supply Inc. ("Defendant") and Plaintiff Jaynie Ulm ("Plaintiff"), by and through their respective counsel of record, hereby stipulate as follows:

1. On March 26, 2009, the parties submitted a joint status report regarding specified discovery-related deadlines, including Disclosure of Expert Testimony, which stated the parties intent that the disclosures would be completed within the timeframe stated in Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 26(a)(2)(C);

2. The parties attended this Court's Status Conference on April 6, 2009, wherein specific discovery deadlines were discussed, including augmenting the expert disclosures from "90 days to 120 days";

3. Counsel for Defendant understood this augmented timeframe to relate to the timeframe specified in Rule 26(a)(2)(C), which states the disclosures must be made "at least 90 days before the date set for trial or for the case ready for trial....";

4. Upon review of the Court's Scheduling Order filed on April 8, 2009, counsel for Defendant noted that Expert Disclosures were due 120 days before the close of discovery, by May 8, 2009;

5. After discussion between plaintiff's and defendant's counsel, the parties agree that there was a misunderstanding concerning the expert disclosure dates during the Status Conference which was not realized until the Court issued the Order. Accordingly, the parties hereby respectfully request that the Court modify its Scheduling Order only with regard to the Expert Discovery deadline;

6. The parties request such a modification based on the fact that initial disclosures, pursuant to the parties' agreement and this Court's Order, are due April 20, 2009, therefore no discovery has been conducted to date, including Plaintiff's mitigation efforts and details related to her subsequent employment that are crucial to an expert economist providing a report and testimony on damages;

7. The parties agreed to utilize this Court's Alternative Dispute Resolution program, thus the expense of retaining an expert to create such a damage analysis before ADR would be an unnecessary cost that may be avoided if the expert discovery deadline were moved;

8. The parties agree that changing the date for expert disclosures will not effect any other dates contained in the Court's Order and no further modification of the Order is necessary;

9. Based on the foregoing, the parties respectfully request that the Expert Disclosure deadline be 120 days before the current pre-trial conference set for February 8, 2010 with close of Expert Discovery to be 60 days before the pretrial conference.

Dated: April 13, 2009

ERICA H. KELLEY LITTLER MENDELSON A Professional Corporation Attorneys for Defendant PATTERSON DENTAL SUPPLY, INC.

Dated: April 13, 2009

Victoria M. Ciganda (as authorized on April 10, 2009.) SHIMODA LAW CORP. Attorneys for Plaintiff JAYNIE ULM

ORDER

Based upon the Stipulation and Request to Modify the Scheduling Order and good cause stated therein,

IT IS ORDERED that the expert disclosure date will be no later than 120 days before the Final Pretrial Conference and the expert discovery shall be completed no later than 60 days before the Final Pretrial Conference.

20090421

© 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.