STATUS (PRETRIAL SCHEDULING) ORDER
This case is before the undersigned pursuant to the consent of the parties. See Dckt. Nos. 10, 11; see also E.D. Cal. L.R. 305; 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). On September 19, 2012, the case was before the undersigned for a status (pretrial scheduling) conference. Attorney Joseph Maloney appeared on behalf of plaintiff and attorney Andrew Morrissey appeared on behalf of defendants. After hearing, and pursuant to the parties' joint status report, Dckt. No. 13, the court enters the following scheduling order: SERVICE OF PROCESS
Service of process is undisputed and defendants have 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.
Plaintiff contends that this court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 in that plaintiff's claims arise under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2 and § 2000e-3 (Title VII). Plaintiff also contends the court has supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Defendants question jurisdiction and contend that they may file a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Venue is not disputed.
All law and motion, except as to discovery, shall be completed by September 25, 2013. 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 non-expert discovery shall be completed by May 30, 2013 and all expert discovery shall be completed by July 30, 2013. 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 non-expert discovery must be noticed on the undersigned's calendar in accordance with the Local Rules and must be heard not later than April 24, 2013 and motions to compel expert discovery must be heard not later than June 26, 2013.
On or before June 30, 2013, the parties are to designate in writing, and serve upon all other parties, the names of all experts they propose to tender at trial.
An expert witness not appearing on said lists will not be permitted to testify unless the party offering the witness demonstrates: (a) that the necessity of the witness could not have been reasonably anticipated at the time the lists were exchanged; (b) the court and opposing counsel were promptly notified upon discovery of the witness; and (c) that the witness was promptly proffered for deposition. Failure to provide the information required ...