IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
August 3, 2011
BEST BUY STORES, L.P., A VIRGINIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, PLAINTIFF,
MANTECA LIFESTYLE CENTER, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Kendall J. Newman United States Magistrate Judge
At the joint request of plaintiff and counter-defendant Best Buy Stores, L.P. (the "plaintiff" or "Best Buy") and defendant and counter-claimant Manteca Lifestyle Center, LLC (the "defendant" or "Manteca"), on August 3, 2011, at 9:30 a.m., the undersigned presided over an informal telephonic discovery conference.*fn1 Attorneys Amy Churan and Michael Geibelson attended telephonically on behalf of the plaintiff. Attorney Howard Jeruchimowitz attended telephonically on behalf of the defendant.
For the reasons discussed during the conference and based on the parties' stipulations stated therein, good cause appearing, it is hereby ORDERED that the Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order (Dkt. No. 24) as previously amended on March 3, 2011 (Dkt. No. 37) be further amended*fn2 as follows:
1. The deadline for the parties to disclose experts and produce reports in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) shall be extended from July 29, 2011, to August 12, 2011.
2. The deadline for the parties to disclose rebuttal experts and produce rebuttal expert reports shall be extended from August 26, 2011, to September 9, 2011.
3. The deadline to complete all discovery shall be extended from September 30, 2011, to October 31, 2011, with all motions to compel to be heard no later than October 31, 2011.
4. All other deadlines are to remain unchanged.
Further, for the reasons discussed during the conference and based upon the representations of the parties, it is hereby ORDERED that:
5. Plaintiff's request for leave to take more than ten depositions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2)(A)(i) is denied without prejudice at this time.
(a) Plaintiff may request such leave in the future; however, for each additional deposition requested plaintiff must provide a detailed explanation as to why that particular deposition is necessary and why its necessity was not previously anticipated. The detailed explanation(s) should include supporting citations to specific discovery documents and/or witness testimony. Any such request should also explain why the additional deposition(s) would be consistent with the principles governing limitations on discovery.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2). The parties remain free to stipulate to the taking of additional depositions and, where reasonable, are encouraged to do so.
6. By close of business on Monday, August 8, 2011, defendant is ordered to complete its document production in its entirety, including but not limited to the production of two unredacted leases as discussed during the teleconference.
7. By close of business on Friday, August 12, 2011, plaintiff is ordered to complete its document production in its entirety, including but not limited to the production of plaintiff's redacted financial reports as discussed during the teleconference.
8. The hearing currently set for August 25, 2011, regarding Defendant's Motion For Protective Order, Or, In The Alternative, To Quash The Subpoenas (Dkt. No. 55), shall remain on calendar. If the parties are unable to resolve this dispute through their continued meet and confer efforts, the parties shall file a Joint Statement re: Discovery Disagreement at least seven days before the hearing date in accordance with Local Rule 251. Counsel may appear telephonically at the hearing, but must make arrangements for telephonic appearance by contacting the undersigned's courtroom deputy at (916) 930-4187. Counsel may also stipulate that the hearing be taken off calendar and may instead request another informal telephonic conference.
IT IS SO ORDERED.