The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge: Hon. Garland E. Burrell
ROBERT A. BUCCOLA, ESQ. / SBN: 112880 STEVEN M. CAMPORA, ESQ. / SBN: 110909 CATIA G. SARAIVA, ESQ. / SBN: 232479 RONALD J. MARTINEZ, ESQ. / SBN: 262628 DREYER BABICH BUCCOLA WOOD CAMPORA, LLP 20 Bicentennial Circle Sacramento, CA 95826 Telephone: (916) 379-3500 Facsimile: (916) 379-3599 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
JOINT MOTION AND ORDER TO MODIFY THE STATUS (PRETRIAL SCHEDULING) ORDER [DOC. 26]
Pursuant to Local Rule 144, and for good cause, Plaintiffs and Defendant jointly move the Court for an Order modifying the Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order ("Scheduling Order") [Doc. 26] to extend the dates for expert disclosures. In support of their motion, the parties, through their respective counsel, state as follows:
1. Under the current Scheduling Order discovery is due to be completed by February 1, 2013. The parties are actively engaging in discovery in a good faith effort to complete discovery in a timely manner. Numerous depositions have been taken, and written discovery is progressing.
2. It has become evident to the parties that additional discovery must be completed before they can prepare their initial expert witness disclosures, which are currently due to be filed on August 3, 2012.
3. Consequently, there is also insufficient time under the current Scheduling Order for preparation of rebuttal expert witness disclosures by September 7, 2012.
4. Pursuant to Local Rule 144(b), the parties have not previously sought or obtained any extensions of the pretrial dates in this matter.
5. The proposed amended dates for expert disclosures will not require a change in any other dates set out in the Scheduling Order. The Final Pretrial Conference date of June 10, 2013 and the Trial date of September 10, 2013 remain unchanged under this proposed modification.
6. THEREFORE, THE PARTIES request the following modifications of the Scheduling Order:
Date Proposed Date
Expert Witness Disclosure August 3, 2012 December 3, 2012 Rebuttal Expert Disclosure September 7, 2012 January 9, 2013 Expert Discovery Cutoff
None March 7, 2013
For each of the foregoing reasons, the parties agree and respectfully submit that good cause exists for the Court to modify the Scheduling Order to provide the parties sufficient time to disclose expert and rebuttal expert witnesses, to prepare expert reports, and to adequately conduct the remaining discovery necessary to prosecute and defend this matter.
IT IS SO ORDERED, that the Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order [Doc. 26] is modified as follows:
1. Each party shall comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B) and (C)'s initial expert disclosure ...