The opinion of the court was delivered by: Garland E. Burrell, Jr. United States District Judge
STATUS PRETRIAL SCHEDULINGORDER
The status (pretrial scheduling) conference scheduled for January 31, 2011, is vacated since the parties' Joint Status Report filed on January 14, 2011 ("JSR") indicates that the following Order should issue.
SERVICE, JOINDER OF ADDITIONAL PARTIES, AMENDMENT Plaintiffs state in the JSR that they "will seek leave to file [a] supplemental pleading to set forth allegations that have taken place since the original pleading was filed[, and the] District advises that they will object to such amendment of the Plaintiffs' pleading." (ECF No. 49, 2:14-17.)
Plaintiffs have thirty (30) days from the date this order is filed within which to file a motion seeking leave to file the referenced amendment, after which time no further service, joinder of parties, or amendments to the pleadings is permitted, except with leave of Court for good cause shown. The referenced motion must be noticed for hearing on the Court's earliest available law and motion date.
All discovery shall be completed by February 16, 2012. 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 September 30, 2011, and any contradictory and/or rebuttal expert disclosure authorized under Rule 26(a)(2)(c)(ii) on or before October 28, 2011.
The last hearing date for motions shall be April 16, 2012, at 9:00 a.m.*fn1
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 addresses the admissibility of evidence.
FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE
The final pretrial conference is set for June 11, 2012, at 1:30 p.m. The parties are cautioned that the lead attorney who WILL TRY THE CASE for each party shall attend the final pretrial conference. In addition, all persons representing themselves and appearing in propria persona must attend the pretrial conference.
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 ...