Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Leon S. Pence v. At&T Pension Benefit Plan

December 21, 2012

LEON S. PENCE,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
AT&T PENSION BENEFIT PLAN,
DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sheila K. Oberto United States Magistrate Judge

SCHEDULING ORDER (Fed.R.Civ.P 16) Initial Disclosures: 1/15/2013
Discovery Deadlines: ) Non Expert: 5/10/2013 Expert: 6/20/2013 Non-Dispositive Motion Deadline: Filing: 6/24/2013

Dispositive Motion Deadline: Filing: 7/31/2013 Settlement Conference: 5/14/2013, at 10:00 a.m. Courtroom 7 Pre-Trial Conference: 11/13/2013 at 8:15 a.m. Courtroom 4 Court Trial: 1/7/2014, at 8:30 a.m.

I. Date of Scheduling Conference December 18, 2012. Courtroom 4 (2 days)

II. Appearances of Counsel

Richard Johnston, Esq., appeared telephonically on behalf of Plaintiff. Katherine Kettler, Esq., appeared telephonically on behalf of Defendant.

III. Amendment to the Parties' Pleadings

The parties do not anticipate any amendments to the pleadings at this time. Any motions or stipulations requesting leave to amend the pleadings must be filed by no later than 1/11/2013. The parties are advised that filing motions and/or stipulations requesting leave to amend the pleadings by 1/11/2013 does not reflect on the propriety of the amendment or imply good cause to modify the existing schedule, if necessary. All proposed amendments must (A) be supported by good cause pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b) if the amendment requires any modification to the existing schedule, see Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992), and (B) establish, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a), that such an amendment is not (1) prejudicial to the opposing party, (2) the product of undue delay, (3) proposed in bad faith, or (4) futile, see Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962).

IV. Consent to the Magistrate Judge

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), the parties have not consented to conduct all further proceedings in this case, including trial, before the Honorable Sheila K. Oberto, U.S. Magistrate Judge.

V. Discovery Plan and Cut-Off Date

The parties are ordered to exchange the initial disclosures required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) on or before 1/15/2013.

The parties are ordered to complete all discovery pertaining to non-experts on or before 5/10/2013 and all discovery pertaining to experts on or before 6/20/2013.

The parties are directed to disclose all expert witnesses, in writing, on or before 5/6/2013, and to disclose all rebuttal experts on or before 5/20/2013. The written designation of retained and non-retained experts shall be made pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 26(a)(2), (A),

(B) and (C) and shall include all information required thereunder. Failure to designate experts in compliance with this order may result in the Court excluding the testimony or other evidence offered through such experts that are not disclosed pursuant to this order.

The provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4) and (5) shall apply to all discovery relating to experts and their opinions. Experts must be fully prepared to be examined on all subjects and opinions included in the designation. Failure to comply will result in the imposition of sanctions, which may include striking the expert designation and preclusion of expert testimony.

The provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e) regarding a party's duty to timely supplement disclosures and responses to discovery ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.