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.

Landeros v. Schafer

United States District Court, E.D. California

May 24, 2018

JENNIFER LANDEROS, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
SAMUEL SCHAFER; et al., Defendants.

          STATUS (PRETRIAL SCHEDULING) ORDER

         An initial scheduling conference was held in this case on May 10, 2018. Stewart Katz appeared for plaintiffs; Bruce Praet appeared for defendants.

         Having reviewed the parties' Joint Status Report filed on May 3, 2018, 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

         Plaintiffs will seek leave to substitute names of individuals for Doe defendants following discovery. 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. §§ 1331 and 1343. Jurisdiction and venue are not disputed.

         IV. DISCOVERY

         Initial disclosures as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a) shall be completed by June 1, 2018. All discovery shall be completed by May 23, 2019. 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.

         The parties agree to number discovery documents so that the documents plaintiffs produce will be assigned page numbers 0001-3, 000, and the documents defendants produce will be numbered 3, 001 and up.

         The court granted the parties' request that each side, the plaintiffs collectively and the defendants collectively, be permitted to take a total of fifteen non-party, non-expert depositions.

         V. DISCLOSURE OF EXPERT WITNESSES

         All counsel are to designate in writing 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 June 28, 2019. 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 2, 2019, 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 ...


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.