Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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.

Hopson v. Yang

United States District Court, E.D. California

July 6, 2017

EDWARD YANG, et al., Defendants.


         An initial scheduling conference was held in this case on June 8, 2017. Daniel Malakauskas appeared for plaintiff; Christopher Eley appeared for defendants.

         Having reviewed the parties' Joint Status Report filed on May 4, 2017, and discussed a schedule for the case with counsel at the hearing, the court makes the following orders:


         All named defendants have been served and no further service is permitted without leave of court, good cause having been shown.


         The court granted plaintiff's request to amend her complaint. Plaintiff's amended complaint was filed on June 15, 2017. Any further motions to join additional parties or amend the pleadings shall be filed with the court not later than July 28, 2017, unless the parties stipulate to a later date with the court's approval.


         Jurisdiction is predicated upon 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq. Jurisdiction and venue are not disputed.

         IV. DISCOVERY

         Initial disclosures as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a) shall have been completed within fourteen (14) days of the scheduling conference. The site inspection of the property covered by plaintiff's claims shall have been completed in June 2017. All discovery shall be completed by December 18, 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, except that the magistrate judge may modify a discovery cutoff to the extent such modification does not have the effect of requiring a change to the balance of the schedule.


         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 2, 2017. 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, 2017, 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 December 18, 2017.


         All dispositive motions, except motions for continuances, temporary restraining orders or other emergency applications, shall be heard no later than January 12, 2018.[1] The parties may obtain available hearing ...

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.