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.

Mid-Century Insurance Co. v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.

United States District Court, E.D. California

April 28, 2017

MID-CENTURY INSURANCE COMPANY a/s/o DOUGLAS AND JOAN BRANIGAN, Plaintiff,
v.
ELECTROLUX HOME PRODUCTS, INC. Defendants.

          SUPPLEMENTAL PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER

          MORRISON C. ENGLAND JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         This action is assigned to the Honorable Morrison C. England, Jr. Pursuant to the provisions of Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

         I. DISCOVERY

         Pursuant to the Court's September 7, 2016 Stipulation and Order (ECF No. 17), all discovery was completed by February 6, 2017, and expert discovery by March 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.[1]

         Not later than May 6, 2017, any party may designate a supplemental list of expert witnesses who will express an opinion on a subject covered by an expert designated by an adverse party. The right to designate a supplemental expert for rebuttal purposes only shall apply to a party who has not previously disclosed an expert witness on the date set for expert witness disclosure by this Order.

         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) good cause for the party's failure to designate the expert witness in accordance with this Order; (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 Order, an “expert” is any person who may be used at trial to present evidence under Federal Rules of Evidence 702, 703, and 705, 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).

         Each 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 given their 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 the trial as to any information gathered or evaluated, or opinion formed, after deposition taken subsequent to designation.

         Counsel are instructed to complete all discovery of expert witnesses in a timely manner in order to comply with the Court's deadline for filing dispositive motions.

         II. DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS

         The last day to hear dispositive motions shall be June 27, 2017. All papers should be filed in conformity with the Local Rules. Absent leave of the Court, all issues the parties wish to resolve on summary judgment must be raised together in one (1) motion or cross-motion. Should the parties wish to file additional motions for summary judgment, they must seek leave of the Court.

         All purely legal issues are to be resolved in timely pretrial motions. When appropriate, failure to comply with Local Rules 230 and 260, as modified by this Order, may be deemed consent to the motion and the Court may dispose of the motion summarily. With respect to motions for summary judgment, failure to comply with Local Rules 230 and 260, as modified by this Order, may result in dismissal for failure to prosecute (or failure to defend) pursuant to this Court's inherent authority to control its docket and or Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Further, failure to timely oppose a summary judgment motion[2] ...


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.