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.

Dewidar v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak)

United States District Court, S.D. California

September 5, 2017

NAWAL DEWIDAR, Plaintiff,
v.
NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION (AMTRAK), et al., Defendants.

          ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION TO AMEND SCHEDULING ORDER [ECF NO. 22]

          HON. RUBEN B. BROOKS, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         The Court has reviewed the parties' “Joint Motion to Amend Scheduling Order” [ECF No. 22]. Good cause shown, the Court GRANTS the joint motion and amends the Scheduling Order as follows:

         1. Plaintiff(s) (or the party(ies) having the burden of proof on any claim) shall serve on all parties a list of experts whom that party expects to call at trial on or before February 12, 2018. Defendant(s) (or the party(ies) defending any claim, counterclaim, crossclaim, or third party claim) shall serve on all parties a list of experts whom that party expects to call at trial on or before February 12, 2018. On or before February 26, 2018, any party may supplement its designation in response to any other party's designation, so long as that party has not previously retained an expert to testify on that subject. Expert designations shall include the name, address, and telephone number of each 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.

         The parties must identify any person who may be used at trial to present evidence pursuant to Rules 702, 703 or 705 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. This requirement is not limited to retained experts.

         Please be advised that 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.

         2. All expert disclosures required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(2) shall be served on all parties on or before March 26, 2018. Any contradictory or rebuttal information shall be disclosed on or before April 9, 2018. In addition, Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(e)(1) imposes a duty on the parties to supplement the expert disclosures made pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(2)(B) by the time that pretrial disclosures are due under Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(3) (discussed below). 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.

         Please be advised that 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.

         3. All fact discovery shall be completed by all parties by January 15, 2018. “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.

         4. All motions for discovery shall be filed no later than thirty (30) days following the date upon which the event giving rise to the discovery dispute occurred. The 30-day deadline will not be extended without a prior Court order; counsel cannot unilaterally extend the deadline. For example, ongoing meet-and-confer efforts, rolling document productions, or supplemental discovery responses do not extend the deadline. A failure to comply will bar the party from filing a corresponding discovery motion. For oral discovery, the event giving rise to the discovery dispute is the completion of the transcript of the affected portion of the deposition. For written discovery, the event giving rise to the discovery dispute is the service of the response. All interrogatories, requests for admission, and document production requests must be served by November 13, 2017.

         5. All expert discovery shall be completed by all parties by May 7, 2018. The parties shall comply with the same procedures set forth in the paragraph governing fact discovery.

         6. All pre-trial motions, other than Daubert motions, motions to amend or join parties, or motions in limine, shall be filed on or before June 4, 2018. All Daubert motions shall be filed on or before June 4, 2018. Counsel for the moving party shall set the motion date on the date that is 35 days from the date the motion is filed. Parties intending to file a motion shall not contact Judge Bencivengo's chambers for a hearing date. The parties should review Judge Bencivengo's chambers rules for civil cases for the additional requirements for noticed motions before Judge Bencivengo.

         Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1.f.3.c, if an opposing party fails to file opposition papers in the time and manner required by Local Rule 7.1.e.2, that failure may constitute a consent to the granting of a motion or other request for ruling by the Court. Accordingly, all parties are ordered to abide by the terms of Local Rule 7.1.e.2 or otherwise face the prospect of any pretrial motion being granted as an unopposed motion pursuant to Local Rule 7.1.f.3.c.

         7. An in-person settlement conference set for October 10, 2017, at 2:00 p.m. is vacated and reset for January 9, 2018, at 2:00 p.m. in the chambers of Magistrate Judge Ruben B. Brooks. Counsel shall lodge confidential settlement briefs directly to chambers by January 2, 2018. All parties are ordered to read and to fully comply with the Chamber Rules of the assigned magistrate judge.

         All parties, claims adjusters for insured Defendants and non-lawyer representatives with complete authority to enter into a binding settlement, as well as the principal attorneys responsible for the litigation, must be present and legally and factually prepared to discuss and resolve the case at the mandatory settlement conference and at all in-person settlement conferences. Retained outside corporate counsel shall not appear on behalf of a corporation as the party representative who has the ...


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.