United States District Court, E.D. California
MID-CENTURY INSURANCE COMPANY a/s/o DOUGLAS AND JOAN BRANIGAN, Plaintiff,
ELECTROLUX HOME PRODUCTS, INC. Defendants.
SUPPLEMENTAL PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER
MORRISON C. ENGLAND JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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:
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.
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
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.
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.
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).
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
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
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.
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.
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 ...