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.

Sienze v. Kutz

United States District Court, E.D. California

February 21, 2018

VICTOR M. SIENZE, Plaintiff,

          SCHEDULING ORDER (FED. R. CIV. P. 16)

         I. Date of Scheduling Conference

         The Scheduling Conference was held on February 20, 2018.

         II. Appearances of Counsel

         Pro Se Plaintiff. No appearance made.

         Wiley Driskill appeared on behalf of Defendants.

         III. Consent to Magistrate Judge

         Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), to the parties who have not consented to conduct all further proceedings in this case, including trial, before United States Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone, you should be informed that because of the pressing workload of United States district judges and the priority of criminal cases under the United States Constitution, you are encouraged to consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction in an effort to have your case adjudicated in a timely and cost effective manner. Presently, when a civil trial is set before Judge Ishii, any criminal trial set which conflicts with the civil trial will take priority, even if the civil trial was set first. Continuances of civil trials under these circumstances may no longer be entertained, absent a specific and stated finding of good cause, but the civil trial may instead trail from day to day or week to week until the completion of either the criminal case or the older civil case. The parties are advised that they are free to withhold consent or decline magistrate jurisdiction without adverse substantive consequences.

         IV. Initial Disclosure under Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(1)

         The Parties are ordered to exchange the initial disclosures required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(1) on or before March 2, 2018.

         V. Amendments to Pleading

         The parties do not anticipate any amendments to the pleadings at this time. The parties are advised that filing motions and/or stipulations requesting leave to amend the pleadings does not reflect on the propriety of the amendment or imply good cause to modify the existing schedule, if necessary. All proposed amendments must (A) be supported by good cause pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b) if the amendment requires any modification to the existing schedule, see Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992), and (B) establish, under Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a), that such an amendment is not (1) prejudicial to the opposing party, (2) the product of undue delay, (3) proposed in bad faith, or (4) futile, see Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962).

         VI. Discovery Plan and Cut-Off Dates

         The parties are ordered to complete all non-expert discovery on or before June 29, 2018 and all expert discovery on or before October 31, 2018.

         The parties are directed to disclose all expert witnesses, in writing, on or before August 17, 2018 and to disclose all supplemental experts on or before September 17, 2018. The written designation of retained and non-retained experts shall be made pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(2), (A), (B) and (C) and shall include all information required thereunder. Failure to designate experts in compliance with this order may result in the Court excluding the testimony or other evidence offered through the experts that are not properly disclosed in compliance with this order.

         The provisions of Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(4) and (5) shall apply to all discovery relating to experts and their opinions. Experts must be fully prepared to be examined on all subjects and opinions included in the designation. Failure to comply will result in the imposition of sanctions, which may include striking the expert designation and the exclusion of their testimony.

         The provisions of Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(e) regarding a party's duty to timely supplement disclosures and responses to discovery requests will be strictly enforced.

         The parties are cautioned that the discovery/expert cut-off deadlines are the dates by which all discovery must be completed. Absent good cause, discovery motions will not be heard after the discovery deadlines. Moreover, absent good cause, the Court will only grant relief on a discovery motion if the relief requested requires the parties to act before the expiration of the relevant discovery deadline. In other words, discovery requests and deposition notices must be served sufficiently in advance of the discovery deadlines to permit time for a response, time to meet and confer, time to prepare, file and hear a motion to compel and time to obtain relief on a motion to compel. Counsel are expected to take these contingencies into account when proposing discovery deadlines. Compliance with these discovery cutoffs requires motions to compel be filed and heard sufficiently in advance of the discovery ...

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.