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 April 11, 2011, is vacated since the parties' Joint Status Report filed on March 28, 2011 ("JSR") indicates that the following Order should issue.
DISMISSAL OF DOE DEFENDANTS
Since Plaintiffs have not justified Doe defendants remaining in this action, Does 1-100 are dismissed. See Order Setting Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference filed November 24, 2010, at 2 n.2 (indicating that if justification for "Doe" defendant allegations not provided Doe defendants would be dismissed).
DISMISSAL OF JENNIFER PIERRE
Plaintiffs state in the JSR that "[they] have decided not to proceed against the individual Defendant Jennifer Pierre." (ECF No. 6, 4:22-23.) Therefore, Jennifer Pierre is dismissed as a defendant.
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 March 16, 2012. Expert discovery shall be completed by September 19, 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 May 18, 2012, and any contradictory and/or rebuttal expert disclosure authorized under Rule 26(a)(2)(c)(ii) on or before June 19, 2012.
The last hearing date for motions shall be November 19, 2012, 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 ...