The opinion of the court was delivered by: Garland E. Burrell, Jr. United States District Judge
STATUS (PRETRIAL SCHEDULING) ORDER
Althoug h Plaintiff did not participate in filing a Status Report as ordered, Defendants state in their Status Report that they "remain amenable to the dates set forth in the Court's April 4, 2011 pretrial scheduling order." (ECF No. 35, 4:18-19.) Therefore, the status (pretrial scheduling) conference scheduled for May 23, 2011, is vacated and the following order issues.
DISMISSAL OF DOE DEFENDANTS
Since Plaintiff has not justified Doe defendants remaining in this action, Does 1-20 are dismissed. See Order Setting Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference filed October 26, 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 October 11, 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 May 20, 2011, and any contradictory and/or rebuttal expert disclosure authorized under Rule 26(a)(2)(c)(ii) on or before July 13, 2011.
The last hearing date for motions shall be December 21, 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 addresses the admissibility of evidence.
FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE
The final pretrial conference is set for February 27, 2012, at 2:30 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 ...