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 August 24, 2009, is vacated since the parties indicate in the Joint Status Report filed August 10, 2009 that the following Order should issue.
SERVICE, JOINDER OF ADDITIONAL PARTIES, AMENDMENT
Plaintiff's counsel anticipates filing an amended Complaint for the purpose including Kaitlyn Dumas as a plaintiff. This referenced amended complaint can be filed within ten days of the date on which this order is filed, and if the motion is filed within this period the Rule 15 standard governs decision on the motion. 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 August 12, 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 March 15, 2010, and any contradictory and/or rebuttal expert disclosure authorized under Rule 26(a)(2)(c)(ii) on or before April 14, 2010.
The last hearing date for motions shall be October 12, 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 manifestly unjust; or
(3) There is an intervening change in controlling law.
A motion for reconsideration based on newly discovered evidence shall set forth, in detail, the reason why said evidence could not reasonably have been discovered prior to the filing of the party's motion or opposition papers. Motions for ...