Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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

Christy Ramirez v. Aetna Life Insurance Company

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


May 13, 2013

CHRISTY RAMIREZ,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
AETNA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, DEFENDANT.

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

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE THE PARTIES' STIPULATED REQUEST FOR A SCHEDULE MODIFICATION (Docket No. 12)

On May 8, 2013, the parties filed a stipulated request to modify the scheduling order. (Doc. 12.) The parties are seeking to extend the non-expert discovery deadline from May 31, 2013, to July 31, 2013, to allow the parties sufficient time to participate in mediation and conduct discovery thereafter if the mediation is unsuccessful. (Doc. 12, ¶1.) The parties' stipulation does not seek any additional modifications to the schedule and does not address any other deadlines.

Continuing the non-expert discovery deadline to July 31, 2013, however, appears to conflict with the expert witness disclosure deadline of May 17, 2013, and the rebuttal expert disclosure deadline of June 7, 2013. (Doc. 11, 2:25-26.) Further, the parties are seeking to continue the non-expert discovery deadline to July 31, 2013, which is the current date of the expert discovery deadline, but fail to address whether the expert discovery deadline will be affected by the requested continuance of the non-expert discovery date.

Before the Court can consider the parties' request to modify the schedule and continue the non-expert discovery deadline, the parties will need to address whether the expert discovery deadlines, including the expert and rebuttal witness disclosures, are impacted. Additionally, if the parties believe that the expert discovery deadline will need to be continued due to the continuance of the non-expert deadline, then all subsequent deadlines will require modification and the parties will be need to propose a new schedule.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties' stipulated request to modify the schedule is DENIED without prejudice. The parties may renew their request by addressing the concerns above and proposing a revised schedule if necessary.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20130513

© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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