United States District Court, E.D. California
STATUS (PRETRIAL SCHEDULING) ORDER
An
initial scheduling conference was held in this case on July
7, 2016. Rachel Stevens appeared for plaintiff; there was no
appearance for defendant.
On July
7, 2016, Connie Y. Techeng, attorney of record for defendant,
filed a declaration informing the court she was out of the
office and inadvertently miscalendared the date for the
scheduling conference. Ms. Techeng also confirms the joint
status report submitted by the parties on June 14, 2016,
accurately represents defendant’s position in this
matter. The court acknowledges counsel’s representation
and no order to show cause will issue. However, counsel is
cautioned that failure to appear when required, or failure to
comply with all orders of this court in the future, may be
met with sanctions.
Having
reviewed the parties’ Joint Status Report and discussed
a schedule for the case with plaintiff’s counsel at the
hearing, the court makes the following orders:
I.
SERVICE OF PROCESS
All
named defendants have been served and no further service is
permitted without leave of court, good cause having been
shown.
II.
ADDITIONAL PARTIES/AMENDMENTS/PLEADINGS
No
further joinder of parties or amendments to pleadings is
permitted without leave of court, good cause having been
shown. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b); Johnson v.
Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604 (9th Cir. 1992).
III.
JURISDICTION/VENUE
Jurisdiction
is predicated upon 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Jurisdiction and
venue are not disputed.
IV.
DISCOVERY
Initial
disclosures as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
26(a) shall be completed within fourteen days of the
scheduling conference. All discovery shall be completed by
January 6, 2017. In this context,
“completed” means that all discovery shall have
been conducted so that all depositions have been taken and
any disputes relative to discovery shall have been resolved
by appropriate order if necessary and, where discovery has
been ordered, the order has been obeyed. All motions to
compel discovery must be noticed on the magistrate
judge’s calendar in accordance with the local rules of
this court. While the assigned magistrate judge reviews
proposed discovery phase protective orders, requests to seal
or redact are decided by Judge Mueller as discussed in more
detail below. In addition, while the assigned magistrate
judge handles discovery motions, the magistrate judge cannot
change the schedule set in this order, even in connection
with a discovery matter.
V.
DISCLOSURE OF EXPERT WITNESSES
All
counsel are to designate in writing, file with the court, and
serve upon all other parties the name, address, and area of
expertise of each expert that they propose to tender at trial
not later than October 20, 2016. The
designation shall be accompanied by a written report prepared
and signed by the witness. The report shall comply with
Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(2)(B). By November 3,
2016, any party who previously disclosed expert
witnesses may submit a supplemental list of expert witnesses
who will express an opinion on a subject covered by an expert
designated by an adverse party, if the party supplementing an
expert witness designation has not previously retained an
expert to testify on that subject. The supplemental
designation shall be accompanied by a written report, which
shall also comply with the conditions stated above.
Failure
of a party to comply with the disclosure schedule as set
forth above in all likelihood will preclude that party from
calling the expert witness at the time of trial. An expert
witness not appearing on the designation will not be
permitted to testify unless the party offering the witness
demonstrates: (a) that the necessity for the witness could
not have been reasonably anticipated at the time the list was
proffered; (b) that the court and opposing counsel were
promptly notified upon discovery of the witness; and (c) that
the witness was promptly made available for deposition.
For
purposes of this scheduling order, an “expert” is
any person who may be used at trial to present evidence under
Rules 702, 703 and 705 of the Federal Rules of Evidence,
which include both “percipient experts” (persons
who, because of their expertise, have rendered expert
opinions in the normal course of their work duties or
observations pertinent to the issues in the case) and
“retained experts” (persons specifically
designated by a party to be a testifying expert for the
purposes of litigation). A party shall identify whether a
disclosed expert is percipient, retained, or both. It will be
assumed that a party designating a retained expert has
acquired the express permission of the witness to be so
listed. Parties designating percipient experts must state in
the designation who is responsible for arranging the
deposition of such persons.
All
experts designated are to be fully prepared at the time of
designation to render an informed opinion, and give the bases
for their opinion, so that they will be able to give full and
complete testimony at any deposition taken by the opposing
party. Experts will not be permitted to testify at trial as
to any information gathered or evaluated, or opinion formed,
after deposition taken subsequent to designation. All expert
discovery shall be completed by January 6,
2017.
VI.
MOTION HEARING SCHEDULE
All
dispositive motions, except motions for continuances,
temporary restraining orders or other emergency applications,
shall be heard no later than February 10,
2017.[1] The parties may obtain available hearing
dates by checking Judge Mueller’s page on the
court’s website.
All
purely legal issues are to be resolved by timely pretrial
motions. Local Rule 230 governs the calendaring and
procedures of civil ...