UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
September 25, 2012
WM. BOLTHOUSE FARMS, INC., ET AL.,
ECOLAB, INC., DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sheila K. Oberto United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE STIPULATED REQUEST TO MODIFY THE SCHEDULE (Docket No. 49)
On September 17, 2012, the parties filed a "Stipulated Order to Continue Trial and Pretrial Dates." (Doc. 49.) The parties are requesting that the schedule be modified due to delays occurring during the mediation process and due to the sale of Plaintiff Wm. Bolthouse Farms, Inc. (Doc. 49.)
Unfortunately, the dates proposed by the parties leave only eight (8) days between the hearing on dispositive motions on December 9, 2013, and the pre-trial conference on December 17, 2013. The proposed deadlines do not leave Chief District Judge Ishii with sufficient time between the dispositive motion hearing date and the pretrial conference to consider and make a determination on any motions before the Court. Additionally, the proposed non-dispositive motion hearing deadline date should be set before Magistrate Judge Oberto on a Wednesday, at 9:30 a.m., as that is the day that Judge Oberto holds law and motion hearings (the parties are currently requesting that the hearing be held on Thursday, October 31, 2013).
The Court is willing to accommodate the parties' request for a modified schedule, but cannot adopt the dates proposed in the stipulation. If the parties wish to re-file their request for an extension of the schedule, they should propose dates that maintain at least seven (7) weeks between the hearing date for the dispositive motions and the pretrial conference as well as at least eight (8) weeks between the date of the pretrial conference and the date of the trial. Further, to allow for adequate time for the Court to consider any dispositive motions filed, it is recommended that the parties allow approximately six (6) weeks between the dispositive motion filing deadline and the dispositive motion hearing date.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The parties' stipulated request to modify the scheduling order is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; and
2. The parties may renew their request by proposing a schedule that comports with the specifications set forth above.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.