IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
January 26, 2010
JAMIL MITCHELL, AN INDIVIDUAL, PLAINTIFF,
HFS NORTH AMERICA, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, DEFENDANT.*FN1
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 February 1, 2010 is vacated since the parties indicate in the Joint Status Report, filed on January 15, 2010, that the following Order should issue.
DISMISSAL OF DOE DEFENDANTS
Since Plaintiff has not justified Doe defendants remaining in this action, Does 1 through 100 are dismissed. See Order Setting Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference filed August 27, 2009, at 2 n.2 (indicating that if justification for "Doe" defendant allegations not provided Doe defendants would be dismissed).
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 March 16, 2011. 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)(c)(i)'s initial expert witness disclosure requirements on or before October 15, 2010, and with any contradictory and/or rebuttal expert disclosure authorized under Rule 26(a)(2)(c)(ii) on or before November 15, 2010.
MOTION HEARING SCHEDULE
The last hearing date for motions shall be May 16, 2011, at 9:00 a.m.*fn3 A motion shall be noticed for hearing on the court's regularly scheduled law and motion calendar.
The parties are cautioned that an untimely motion characterized as a motion in limine may be summarily denied. A motion in limine addresses the admissibility of evidence.
FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE
The final pretrial conference is set for July 25, 2011 at 2:30 p.m. The conference shall be attended by at least one of the attorneys who will conduct the trial for each party and by any unrepresented party.
The parties are warned that non-trial worthy issues could be eliminated sua sponte "[i]f the pretrial conference discloses that no material facts are in dispute and that the undisputed facts entitle one of the parties to judgment as a matter of law." Portsmouth Square v. S'holders Protective Comm., 770 F.2d 866, 869 (9th Cir. 1985). The parties shall file a JOINT pretrial statement no later than seven (7) calendar days prior to the final pretrial conference.*fn4
The parties shall include in the joint pretrial statement: (1) a list of the remaining claims against each defendant; (2) a list of the remaining affirmative defenses; and (3) the estimated number of trial days.*fn5 Further, in accordance with Local Rule 281(b)(3)-(4), the parties shall provide the undisputed facts they agree can be read to the jury before opening statements, or used by the judge in deciding a bench trial; and a concise statement of disputed factual issues pertinent to the claims and affirmative defenses to be tried.
The Court uses the parties' joint pretrial statement to prepare its final pretrial order and could issue the final pretrial order without holding the scheduled final pretrial conference. See Mizwicki v. Helwig, 196 F.3d 828, 833 (7th Cir. 1999) ("There is no requirement that the court hold a pretrial conference."). If possible, at the time of filing the joint pretrial statement counsel shall also email it in a format compatible with WordPerfect to: email@example.com.
Trial shall commence at 9:00 a.m. on October 25, 2011.
The parties are reminded that pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b), the Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order shall not be modified except by leave of Court upon a showing of good cause. Counsel are cautioned that a mere stipulation by itself to change dates does not constitute good cause.
IT IS SO ORDERED.