SCHEDULING ORDER (Fed.R.Civ.P 16)
STANLEY A. BOONE, Magistrate Judge.
I. Date of Scheduling Conference
The Scheduling Conference was held on August 6, 2013.
II. Appearances of Counsel
Tanya Moore appeared telephonically on behalf of Plaintiff. Kathleen Hartman appeared telephonically on behalf of Defendant.
III. Consent to Magistrate Judge
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), to the parties who have not consented to conduct all further proceedings in this case, including trial,  before United States Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone, you should be informed that because of the pressing workload of United States district judges and the priority of criminal cases under the United States Constitution, you are strongly encouraged to consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction in an effort to have your case adjudicated in a timely and cost effective manner.
Presently, when a civil trial is set before Judge O'Neill, any criminal trial set which conflicts with the civil trial will take priority, even if the civil trial was set first. Continuances of civil trials under these circumstances will no longer be entertained, absent a specific and stated finding of good cause, but the civil trial will instead trail from day to day or week to week until the completion of either the criminal case or the older civil case.
IV. Initial Disclosure under Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(1)
The parties are ordered to exchange the initial disclosures required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(1) on or before September 6, 2013.
V. Amendments to Pleading
Any motions or stipulations requesting leave to amend the pleadings must be filed by no later than October 31, 2013. The parties are advised that filing motions and/or stipulations requesting leave to amend the pleadings 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).
VI. Discovery Plan and Cut-Off Dates
The parties are ordered to complete all non-expert discovery on or before April 9, 2013, and all expert discovery on or before April 23, 2013.
The parties are directed to disclose all expert witnesses, in writing, on or before March 12, 2013, and to disclose all supplemental experts on or before April 9, 2013. The written designation of retained and non-retained experts shall be made pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 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 the experts that are not properly disclosed in compliance with 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 ...