STATUS (PRETRIAL SCHEDULING) ORDER
This case is before the undersigned pursuant to the consent of the parties. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c); E.D. Cal. L.R. 305; Dckt. No. 13. On August 10, 2011, the case was before the undersigned for a status (pretrial scheduling) conference. Attorneys Sylvia Quast, Brian Ridel, and Catherine Redmond appeared on behalf of plaintiffs; attorneys Jeffrey Setness and Thomas Bruen appeared on behalf of defendant. After hearing, and pursuant to the parties' joint status report, Dckt. No. 16, the court enters the following scheduling order: NATURE OF CASE
This is a civil enforcement action alleging violations of the Clean Air Act ("CAA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 7401 et seq., and California Health and Safety Code sections 39000, et seq., at a municipal solid waste landfill that defendant owns and operates located in Manteca, California.
Service of process is undisputed and defendant has answered. JOINDER OF PARTIES/AMENDMENTS No further joinder of parties or amendments to pleadings is permitted except with leave of court, good cause having been shown.
The parties do not dispute that venue is proper and that this court has jurisdiction over plaintiffs' federal claims. However, the parties disagree regarding whether the court has supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs' state law claims.
All law and motion, except as to discovery, shall be completed by August 22, 2012. The word "completed" in this context means that all law and motion matters must be heard by the above date. Counsel (and/or pro se parties)*fn1 are cautioned to refer to the Local Rules regarding the requirements for noticing such motions on the court's regularly scheduled law and motion calendar. This paragraph does not preclude motions for continuances, temporary restraining orders or other emergency applications, and is subject to any special scheduling set forth in the "MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS" paragraph below.
The parties should keep in mind that the purpose of law and motion is to narrow and refine the legal issues raised by the case, and to dispose of by pretrial motion those issues that are susceptible to resolution without trial. To accomplish that purpose, the parties need to identify and fully research the issues presented by the case, and then examine those issues in light of the evidence gleaned through discovery. If it appears to counsel after examining the legal issues and facts that an issue can be resolved by pretrial motion, counsel are to file the appropriate motion by the law and motion cutoff set forth above.
ALL PURELY LEGAL ISSUES ARE TO BE RESOLVED BY TIMELY PRETRIAL MOTION. Counsel are reminded that motions in limine are procedural devices designed to address the admissibility of evidence. COUNSEL ARE CAUTIONED THAT THE COURT WILL LOOK WITH DISFAVOR UPON SUBSTANTIVE MOTIONS PRESENTED IN THE GUISE OF MOTIONS IN LIMINE AT THE TIME OF TRIAL.
All fact discovery shall be completed by March 2, 2012 and all expert discovery shall be completed by June 22, 2012. The word "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 complied with. Motions to compel fact discovery must be noticed on the undersigned's calendar in accordance with the Local Rules and must be heard not later than February 1, 2012. Motions to compel expert discovery must be heard not later than June 6, 2012.
The parties are to designate in writing, and serve upon all other parties, the names of all experts they propose to tender at trial, pursuant to the following schedule: initial expert disclosures shall be made on or before April 13, 2012; ...