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.

Acosta v. Evergreen Moneysource Mortgage Co.

United States District Court, E.D. California

November 6, 2017

JARED ACOSTA, Plaintiff,
v.
EVERGREEN MONEYSOURCE MORTGAGE COMPANY, et al., Defendants.

          STATUS (PRETRIAL SCHEDULING) ORDER - CLASS CERTIFICATION PHASE

         An initial scheduling conference was held in this case on October 27, 2017. Justin Rodriguez appeared for plaintiff; Julie Yap appeared for defendant.

         Having reviewed the parties' Joint Status Report filed on October 19, 2017, and discussed a schedule for the case with counsel at the hearing, the court makes the following orders:

         I. SERVICE OF PROCESS

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

         II. ADDITIONAL PARTIES/AMENDMENTS/PLEADINGS

         No further joinder of parties or amendments to pleadings is permitted without leave of court, good cause having been shown. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b); Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604 (9th Cir. 1992).

         III. JURISDICTION/VENUE

         Jurisdiction is predicated upon 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441 and 1446. Jurisdiction and venue are not disputed.

         IV. FACT DISCOVERY

         Initial disclosures are postponed while the parties participate in private mediation. Should the parties be unable to resolve this matter, initial disclosures are due within thirty days of the failed mediation. All class certification discovery shall be completed by June 15, 2018. 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.

         V. DISCLOSURE OF EXPERT WITNESSES

         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 not later than July 20, 2018. 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 August 10, 2018, 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 the hearing. 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 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 ...


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.