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.

Bam Mark Lawley v. California Department of

January 11, 2013

BAM MARK LAWLEY,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES,
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: 2/1/2013 Discovery Deadlines: Non Expert: 9/30/2013 Expert: 12/6/2013 Non-Dispositive Motion Deadline: Filing: 12/13/2013 Dispositive Motion Deadline:

Filing: 1/15/2014

Settlement Conference: 9/5/2013, at 9:30 a.m.

Courtroom 8 Pre-Trial Conference: 4/9/2014, at 8:15 a.m.

Courtroom 4 Jury Trial: 5/20/2014, at 8:30 a.m. Courtroom 4 (10-14 days)

Date of Scheduling Conference

January 10, 2013.*fn1

I. Appearances of Counsel

Robert Wasserman, Esq., appeared on behalf of Plaintiff. Amy Lindsey-Doyle, Esq., appeared 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 3/8/2013. The parties are advised that filing motions and/or stipulations requesting leave to amend the pleadings by 3/8/2013, 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 Barbara A. McAuliffe, 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 2/1/2013.

The parties are ordered to complete all discovery pertaining to non-experts on or before 9/30/2013, and all discovery pertaining to experts on or before 12/6/2013.

The parties are directed to disclose all expert witnesses, in writing, on or before 7/15/2013, and to disclose all rebuttal experts on or before 9/3/2013. The written designation of retained and non-retained experts ...


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.