United States District Court, E.D. California
SCHEDULING ORDER (FED. R. CIV. P. 16)
JENNIFER L. THURSTON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
I.
Date of Scheduling Conference
June
23, 2016.
II.
Appearances of Counsel
Jennifer
Jiao appeared on behalf of Plaintiff.
Joshua
Traver appeared on behalf of Defendant.
III.
Magistrate Judge Consent:
Notice
of Congested Docket and Court Policy of
Trailing
Due to
the District Judges' heavy caseload, the newly adopted
policy of the Fresno Division of the Eastern District is to
trail all civil cases. The parties are hereby notified that
for a trial date set before a District Judge, the parties
will trail indefinitely behind any higher priority criminal
or older civil case set on the same date until a courtroom
becomes available. The trial date will not be reset to a
continued date.
The
Magistrate Judges' availability is far more realistic and
accommodating to parties than that of the U.S. District
Judges who carry the heaviest caseloads in the nation and who
must prioritize criminal and older civil cases over more
recently filed civil cases. A United States Magistrate Judge
may conduct trials, including entry of final judgment,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 73, and Local Rule 305. Any appeal from a judgment
entered by a United States Magistrate Judge is taken directly
to the United States Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit.
The
Fresno Division of the Eastern District of California,
whenever possible, is utilizing United States Article III
District Court Judges from throughout the nation as Visiting
Judges. Pursuant to the Local Rules, Appendix A, such
reassignments will be random, and the parties will receive no
advance notice before their case is reassigned to an Article
III District Court Judge from outside of the Eastern District
of California.
Therefore,
the parties are directed to consider consenting to Magistrate
Judge jurisdiction to conduct all further proceedings,
including trial. Within 10 days of the date of this
order, counsel SHALL file a consent/decline form (provided by
the Court at the inception of this case) indicating whether
they will consent to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate
Judge.
IV.
Pleading Amendment Deadline
Any
requested pleading amendments[1] are ordered to be filed, either
through a stipulation or motion to amend, no later than
September 19, 2016.
V.
Discovery Plan and Cut-Off Date
Counsel
SHALL meet and confer to develop a stipulated protective
order to apply in this case. They SHALL file the stipulated
protective order no later than July 8, 2016.
The
parties are ordered to exchange the initial disclosures
required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(1) on or before June
30, 2016.
The
parties are ordered to complete all discovery pertaining to
non-experts on or before January 31, 2017,
and all discovery pertaining to experts on or before
March 31, 2017.
The
parties are directed to disclose all expert witnesses, in
writing, on or before February 15, 2017, and
to disclose all rebuttal experts on or before March
8, 2017. 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 ...