The opinion of the court was delivered by: Garland E. Burrell, Jr. United States District Judge
STATUS (PRETRIAL SCHEDULING) ORDER
The May 7, 2009, Order Setting Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference, scheduled a status conference in this action for August 10, 2009, and required the parties to file a joint status report fourteen days prior to the status conference. Rather than file a timely status report, the parties filed a late status report, risking invocation of sanctions proceedings; perhaps sanctions will encourage timely filings.
The status (pretrial scheduling) conference scheduled for August 10, 2009, is vacated since the parties indicate in the Joint Status Report 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.
All discovery shall be completed by July 8, 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.*fn1
Each party shall comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(c)(i)'s initial expert witness disclosure requirements on or before February 8, 2010, and any contradictory and/or rebuttal expert disclosure authorized under Rule 26(a)(2)(c)(ii) on or before March 8, 2010.
The last hearing date for motions shall be September 13, 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 party's motion or opposition papers;
(2) The Court committed clear error or the initial decision was ...