Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Chrisma Griggs v. Michael Bullock and Craig Tanaka

July 26, 2011

CHRISMA GRIGGS,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
MICHAEL BULLOCK AND CRAIG TANAKA
DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gary S. AustinUNITED States Magistrate Judge

ORDER REGARDING PARTIES' JOINT TULARE DISTRICT HOSPITAL, SCHEDULING REPORTAMENDEDSCHEDULING ORDER SETTINGNEW DATES IN THIS CASE) Discovery Deadlines: Non Expert Discovery: 8/25/11 Expert Disclosure: 9/9/11ORDER VACATING STATUS CONFERENCESET BEFORE THE HONORABLE OLIVER W.WANGER ON JULY 28, 2011 Supplemental Expert Disclosure: 9/30/11) Expert Discovery:10/28/11 ) Motion Deadlines: ) Non-Dispositive Filing: 11/4/11 ) Dispositive Filing: 12/2/11 ) Settlement Conference: Not Set ) Pre-Trial Conference: 1/30/12 before OWW ) Courtroom 3, 7th Floor ) Trial 2/7/12 at 9:00 beforeOWW ) Courtroom 3, 7th Floor ) (Doc. 62)On July 11, 2011, this Court held an Order to Show Cause hearing. (Doc. 60). The Orderto Show Cause was vacated and the parties were advised that some of the dates in the scheduling order issued on July 23, 2010 had expired. (Doc. 61). As such, this Court ordered that the parties supply the Court with a joint scheduling report with proposed deadlines for this case. A status report to address setting new dates was set for July 28, 2011 at 8:15 before the Honorable OliverW. Wanger. (Doc. 61).

On July 21, 2011, the parties filed a Joint Scheduling Report. (Doc. 62). Although thedocument is entitled "Joint Scheduling Report," it is in fact a stipulation in which all parties agree that only the Defendants may extend the non-expert discovery deadline which is currently April 29, 2011 until August 25, 2011, so that Plaintiff's deposition may be taken. There are no other requests for modification of the scheduling order. However, extending the non-expert discovery deadline as proposed will not only will affect all of the other dates in this case, but also is not appropriate given that Plaintiff recently began representing appearing pro se. Since neither party has provided the Court with additional dates, the status conference set before the Honorable Oliver W. Wanger on July 28, 2011 at 8:15 am is VACATED. Furthermore, the Court modifies the dates outlined in the scheduling order issued on July 23, 2010 as set forth below:

I. Discovery Plan and Cut-Off Dates

The parties are ordered to complete all discovery pertaining to non-experts on or before August 25, 2011. The parties are directed to disclose all expert witnesses, in writing, on or before September 9, 2011. The parties also shall disclose all supplemental experts on or before September 30, 2011. The written designation of experts shall be made pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.P. Rule 26(a)(2), (A) and (B) and shall include all information required thereunder. Failure to designate experts in compliance with this order may result in the Court excluding the testimony or other evidence offered through such experts that are not disclosed pursuant to this order.

The parties are directed to complete all expert discovery on or before October 28, 2011. The provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4) and (5) shall apply to all discovery relating to experts and their opinions. Experts must be fully prepared to be examined on all subjects and opinions included in the designation. Failure to comply will result in the imposition of sanctions, which may include striking the expert designation and preclusion of expert testimony.

II. Pre-Trial Motion Schedule

All Non-Dispositive Pre-Trial Motions, including any discovery motions, shall be filed no later than November 4, 2011 and will be heard in Courtroom 10 before Magistrate Judge Gary Austin. In scheduling such motions, the parties shall comply with Local Rule 230. Counsel must comply with Local Rule 251 with respect to discovery disputes or the motion will be denied without prejudice and dropped from calendar. In scheduling such motions, the Judge may grant applications for an order shortening time pursuant to Local Rule 6. However, if a party does not obtain an order shortening time, the notice of motion must comply with Local Rule 251. In addition to filing a joint statement electronically, a copy of the joint statement shall also be sent Judge Austin's chambers by email to gsaorders@caed.uscourts.gov.

The parties are advised that unless prior leave of the Court is obtained, all moving and opposition briefs or legal memorandum in civil cases before Judge Austin shall not exceed thirty (30) pages. Reply briefs by the moving party shall not exceed ten (10) pages. These page limitations do no include exhibits. Briefs that exceed this page limitation, or are sought to be filed without leave, may not be considered by the Court.

Counsel or pro se parties may appear and argue non-dispositive motions by telephone, providing a written request to so do is made to Judge Austin's Clerk no later than five (5) court days before the noticed hearing date. In the event that more than one party requests to appear by telephone, it shall be the obligation of the moving part(ies) to arrange and originate a conference call to the Court.

All Dispositive Pre-Trial Motions shall be filed no later than December 2, 2011 and will be heard before The Honorable Oliver W. Wanger. In scheduling such motions, the parties shall comply with Local Rules 230 and 260. Moreover, the parties shall submit one (1) courtesy paper copy to the Court of any motions filed. Exhibits shall be marked with protruding numbered or lettered tabs so that the Court can easily identify such exhibits.

Motions for Summary Judgment or Summary Adjudication

Prior to filing a motion for summary judgment or motion for summary adjudication the parties are ORDERED to meet, in person or by telephone, and confer to discuss the issues to be raised in the motion.

The purpose of meeting shall be to 1) avoid filing motions for summary judgment where a question of fact exists; 2) determine whether the respondent agrees that the motion has merit in whole or in part; 3) discuss whether issues can be resolved without the necessity of briefing; 4) narrow the issues for review by the court; 5) explore the possibility of settlement before the parties incur the expense of briefing a summary judgment motion; and 6) to arrive at a joint statement of undisputed facts.

The moving party shall initiate the meeting and provide a draft of the joint statement of undisputed facts. In addition to the requirements of Local Rule 260, the moving party ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.