Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

California Lacrosse, Inc. v. Lacrosse Unlimited, Inc.

United States District Court, S.D. California

April 7, 2017

California Lacrosse, Inc., Plaintiff,
v.
Lacrosse Unlimited, Inc., Defendant. AND RELATED COUNTER ACTION.

          ORDER: (1) GRANTING IN PART JOINT MOTION TO CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT DATES AND DEADLINES [ECF NO. 35]; (2) AMENDING SCHEDULING ORDER [ECF NO. 18]

          Hon. Jill L. Burkhardt, United States Magistrate Judge

         Before the Court is the parties' Joint Motion to Continue Case Management Dates and Deadlines. (ECF No. 35.) The parties seek a 45-day extension of the remaining dates and deadlines set forth in the operative scheduling order. (Id. at 2.) For good cause shown, the Joint Motion is GRANTED in part.[1] Accordingly, the Scheduling Order issued in this case (ECF No. 18) is amended as follows:

         1. All discovery, including expert discovery, shall be completed by all parties by June 5, 2017. “Completed” means that all discovery under Rules 30-36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and discovery subpoenas under Rule 45, must be initiated a sufficient period of time in advance of the cut-off date, so that it may be completed by the cut-off date, taking into account the times for service, notice and response as set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Counsel shall promptly and in good faith meet and confer with regard to all discovery disputes in compliance with Local Rule 26.1(a). The Court expects counsel to make every effort to resolve all disputes without court intervention through the meet and confer process. If the parties reach an impasse on any discovery issue, counsel shall file an appropriate motion within the time limit and procedures outlined in the undersigned magistrate judge's chambers rules. A failure to comply in this regard will result in a waiver of a party's discovery issue. Absent an order of the court, no stipulation continuing or altering this requirement will be recognized by the court.

         Discovery motions must be filed in the time and manner directed by Magistrate Judge Burkhardt (see Judge Burkhardt's Civil Chambers Rules on Discovery Disputes available on the Court's website). All discovery motions must be filed within 30 days of the service of an objection, answer, or response which becomes the subject of dispute, or the passage of a discovery due date without response or production, and only after counsel have met and conferred to resolve the dispute and requested an informal teleconference with the Court.

         2. The parties shall designate their respective experts in writing by May 1, 2017. The parties must identify any person who may be used at trial to present evidence pursuant to Rules 702, 703 or 705 of the Fed.R.Evid. This requirement is not limited to retained experts. The date for exchange of rebuttal experts shall be by May 19, 2017. The written designations shall include the name, address and telephone number of the expert and a reasonable summary of the testimony the expert is expected to provide. The list shall also include the normal rates the expert charges for deposition and trial testimony.

         3. By May 1, 2017, each party shall comply with the disclosure provisions in Rule 26(a)(2)(A) and (B) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This disclosure requirement applies to all persons retained or specially employed to provide expert testimony, or whose duties as an employee of the party regularly involve the giving of expert testimony. Except as provided in the paragraph below, any party that fails to make these disclosures shall not, absent substantial justification, be permitted to use evidence or testimony not disclosed at any hearing or at the time of trial. In addition, the Court may impose sanctions as permitted by Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(c).

         4. Any party shall supplement its disclosure regarding contradictory or rebuttal evidence under Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(2)(D) by May 19, 2017.

         5. Failure to comply with this section or any other discovery order of the court may result in the sanctions provided for in Fed.R.Civ.P. 37, including a prohibition on the introduction of experts or other designated matters in evidence.

         6. All other pretrial motions including those addressing Daubert issues must be filed by July 3, 2017. Counsel for the moving party must obtain a motion hearing date from Judge Bencivengo's law clerk. Failure to make a timely request for a motion date may result in the motion not being heard. No oral argument will be scheduled unless ordered by the Court. Opposition briefs must be filed no later than fourteen days after the motion was filed, and any reply briefs must be filed no later than seven days after the opposition briefs. A schedule for motions in limine will be set at the final pretrial conference.

         7. A Mandatory Settlement Conference shall be conducted on June 15, 2017, at 1:45 PM in the chambers of Magistrate Judge Jill L. Burkhardt. Counsel or any party representing himself or herself shall submit confidential settlement briefs directly to chambers by June 5, 2017. All parties are ordered to read and to fully comply with the Chamber Rules of the assigned magistrate judge.

         The confidential settlement statements should be lodged by e-mail to efileBurkhardt@casd.uscourts.gov. Each party's settlement statement shall concisely set forth the following: (1) the party's statement of the case; (2) the controlling legal issues; (3) issues of liability and damages; (4) the party's settlement position, including the last offer or demand made by that party; (5) a separate statement of the offer or demand the party is prepared to make at the settlement conference; and (6) a list of all attorney and non-attorney attendees for the Conference, including person(s) and their title(s) or position(s) with the party who will attend and have settlement authority at the conference. If exhibits are attached and the total submission amounts to more than 20 pages, a hard copy must also be delivered directly to Magistrate Judge Burkhardt's chambers. Settlement conference statements shall not be filed with the Clerk of the Court. Settlement conference statements may be exchanged confidentially with opposing counsel within the parties' discretion.

         Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 16.3, all party representatives and claims adjusters for insured defendants with full and unlimited authority[2] to negotiate and enter into a binding settlement, as well as the principal attorney(s) responsible for the litigation, must be present and legally and factually prepared to discuss and resolve the case at the mandatory settlement conference. In the case of a corporate entity, an authorized representative of the corporation who is not retained outside counsel must be present and must have discretionary authority to commit the company to pay an amount up to the amount of the Plaintiff's prayer (excluding punitive damages prayers). The purpose of this requirement is to have representatives present who can settle the case during the course of the conference without consulting a superior.

         Failure to attend the conference or obtain proper excuse will be considered grounds for sanctions.

         8. In jury trial cases before Judge Bencivengo, neither party is required to file ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.