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
July
18, 2016.
II.
Appearances of Counsel
Randall
Rumph appeared on behalf of Plaintiff.
Tyler
Paetkau appeared on behalf of Defendant ABS Global, Inc.
James
Braze appeared on behalf of Defendant Pro Vita Animal Health,
LLC.
III.
Information Concerning the Court’s
Schedule
Out of
fairness, the Court believes it is necessary to forewarn
litigants that the Fresno Division of the Eastern District of
California now has the heaviest District Court Judge caseload
in the entire nation. While the Court will use its best
efforts to resolve this case and all other civil cases in a
timely manner, the parties are admonished that not all of the
parties’ needs and expectations may be met as
expeditiously as desired. As multiple trials are now being
set to begin upon the same date, parties may find their case
trailing with little notice before the trial begins. The law
requires that the Court give any criminal trial priority over
civil trials or any other matter. The Court must proceed with
a criminal trial even if a civil trial was filed earlier and
set for trial first. Continuances of any civil trial under
these circumstances will no longer be entertained, absent a
specific and stated finding of good cause. All parties should
be informed that any civil trial set to begin during the time
a criminal trial is proceeding will trail the completion of
the criminal trial.
The
parties are reminded of the availability of a United States
Magistrate Judge to conduct all proceedings in this action. A
United States Magistrate Judge is available to 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. The same jury pool is used by both United
States Magistrate Judges and United States District Court
Judges. Any appeal from a judgment entered by a Magistrate
Judge is taken directly to the United States Court of Appeal
for the Ninth Circuit. However, the parties are hereby
informed that no substantive rulings or decisions will be
affected by whether a party chooses to consent.
Finally,
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,
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.
Plaintiff
consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction on the record
during the Scheduling Conference. Defendants are directed to
consider consenting to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction to
conduct all further proceedings, including trial. Within
21 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 are ordered to be filed, either
through a stipulation or motion to amend, no later than
October 17, 2016.
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 August 8,
2016.
The
parties are ordered to complete all discovery pertaining to
non-experts on or before May 26, 2017, and all discovery
pertaining to experts on or before August 4, 2017.
The
parties are directed to disclose all expert
witnesses[1], in writing, on or before June 9, 2017,
and to disclose all rebuttal experts on or before July 7,
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 discovery
requests will be strictly enforced.
A
mid-discovery status conference is scheduled for March 7,
2017 at 8:30 a.m. before the Honorable Jennifer L. Thurston,
U.S. Magistrate Judge, located at 510 19th Street,
Bakersfield, California. Counsel SHALL file a joint
mid-discovery status conference report one week before the
conference. Counsel also SHALL lodge the status report via
e-mail to JLTorders@caed.uscourts.gov. The joint
statement SHALL outline the discovery counsel have completed
and that which needs to be completed as well as any
impediments to completing the discovery within the deadlines
set forth in this order. Counsel may appear via CourtCall,
providing a written ...