STATUS (PRETRIAL SCHEDULING)
An initial joint scheduling conference was held in these cases on June 1, 2011. Steven Schultz appeared for plaintiff; Donald Lounsbury and Philip Burney appeared for defendants Oroville Hospital, David Hall, Doug Edgar, Mark Heinrich, and Ardauan Afrasiabi; Tahj Gomes appeared for defendants Letner (erroneously sued as Letmer) and North State Imaging; and Edward Olsen appeared on behalf of defendant United States. Having reviewed the parties' Joint Status Report filed on May 25, 2011, and discussed a schedule for the case with counsel at the hearing, the court makes the following orders:
All named defendants have been served and no further service is permitted without leave of court, good cause having been shown.
II. ADDITIONAL PARTIES/AMENDMENTS/PLEADINGS
No further joinder of parties or amendments to pleadings is permitted without leave of court, good cause having been shown. See FED. R. CIV. P. 16(b); Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604 (9th Cir. 1992).
Jurisdiction is predicated upon 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346, 1441, and 1446.*fn1 Jurisdiction and venue are not disputed.
Initial disclosures shall be made within thirty (30) days of the entry of this order. All discovery shall be completed by April 20, 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 order if necessary and, where discovery has been ordered, the order has been obeyed. All motions to compel discovery must be noticed on the magistrate judge's calendar in accordance with the local rules of this court.
V. DISCLOSURE OF EXPERT WITNESSES
All counsel are to designate in writing, file with the court, and serve upon all other parties the name, address, and area of expertise of each expert that they propose to tender at trial not later than May 17, 2012. The designation shall be accompanied by a written report prepared and signed by the witness. The report shall comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B). By June 14, 2012, any party who previously disclosed expert witnesses may submit a supplemental list of expert witnesses who will express an opinion on a subject covered by an expert designated by an adverse party, if the party supplementing an expert witness designation has not previously retained an expert to testify on that subject. The supplemental designation shall be accompanied by a written report which shall also comply with the conditions as stated above.
Failure of a party to comply with the disclosure schedule as set forth above in all likelihood will preclude that party from calling the expert witness at the time of trial. An expert witness not appearing on the designation will not be permitted to testify unless the party offering the witness demonstrates: (a) that the necessity for the witness could not have been reasonably anticipated at the time the list was proffered; (b) that the court and opposing counsel were promptly notified upon discovery of the witness; and (c) that the witness was promptly made available for deposition.
For purposes of this scheduling order, an "expert" is any person who may be used at trial to present evidence under Rules 702, 703, and 705 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, which include both "percipient experts" (persons who, because of their expertise, have rendered expert opinions in the normal course of their work duties or observations pertinent to the issues in the case) and "retained experts" (persons specifically designated by a party to be a testifying expert for the purposes of litigation). Each party shall identify whether a disclosed expert is percipient, retained, or both. It will be assumed that a party designating a retained expert has acquired the express ...