Galindo v. ABS Global, Inc.

          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 ...