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 23, 2010, is vacated since the parties' Joint Status Report filed on August 9, 2010 ("JSR"), indicates the following Order should issue.
DISMISSAL OF DOE DEFENDANTS
Since Plaintiff has not justified Doe defendants remaining in this action, Does 1-30 are dismissed. See Order Setting Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference filed May 4, 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.
All discovery shall be completed by August 9, 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.
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 16, 2011, and any contradictory and/or rebuttal expert disclosure authorized under Rule 26(a)(2)(c)(ii) on or before April 13, 2011.
The last hearing date for motions shall be October 11, 2011, at 9:00 a.m.*fn2
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).
The parties are cautioned that an untimely motion characterized as a motion in limine may be summarily denied. A motion in limine ...