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 June 14, 2010, is vacated since the Joint Status Report filed on May 28, 2010 ("JSR") indicates that the following Order should issue.
DISMISSAL OF DOE DEFENDANTS
Since Plaintiff has not justified Doe defendants remaining in this action, Does 1-10 are dismissed. See Order Setting Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference filed February 10, 2010, 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 for good cause shown.
Non-expert discovery shall be completed by December 17, 2010. Expert discovery shall be completed by August 19, 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 February 18, 2011, and any contradictory and/or rebuttal expert disclosure authorized under Rule 26(a)(2)(c)(ii) on or before March 18, 2011.
The last hearing date for motions shall be October 24, 2011, at 9:00 a.m.*fn3
Motions shall be filed in accordance with Local Rule 230(b). Opposition papers shall be filed in accordance with Local Rule 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 ...