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.

ESI Group v. Wave Six, LLC

United States District Court, S.D. California

September 10, 2019

ESI GROUP, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
WAVE SIX, LLC., et al., Defendants.

          ORDER: (1) GRANTING IN PART JOINT MOTION TO CONTINUE SCHEDULING ORDER DEADLINES [ECF NO. 79] AND (2) AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER REGULATING DISCOVERY AND OTHER PRE-TRIAL PROCEEDINGS

          HONORABLE MICHAEL S. BERG UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         On September 5, 2019, the parties filed a “Joint Motion for Continuance and Extension of Scheduling Order Deadlines.” (ECF No. 79.) They ask the Court to continue all remaining dates in the Scheduling Order by sixty days. (Id. at 2.) In support, the parties state that this is a complex case, they require additional time to complete document production, and “anticipate numerous deposition to be taken once document production is complete.” (Id.) The parties also list their proposed dates. (See ECF No. 79-2 at 2-8.)

         Having considered the joint motion and finding good case, the Court GRANTS IN PART the motion. After consulting with the chambers of District Judge Battaglia, the Court amends its Scheduling Order as follows:

         1. The parties must disclose the identity of their respective experts in writing by December 13, 2019. The date for the disclosure of the identity of rebuttal experts must be on or before December 31, 2019. The written designations must include the name, address and telephone number of the expert and a reasonable summary of the testimony the expert is expected to provide. The list must 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 Fed.R.Evid. 702, 703 and 705, respectively. This requirement is not limited to retained experts.

         2. On or before February 3, 2020, each party must comply with the disclosure provisions in Rule 26(a)(2)(B) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This disclosure requirement applies to all persons retained or specifically employed to provide expert testimony or whose duties as an employee of the part regularly involve the giving of expert testimony.

         3. Any party shall supplement its disclosure regarding contradictory or rebuttal evidence under Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(2)(c) by February 18, 2020.

         4. 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.

         5. All fact discovery shall be completed by all parties on or before November 8, 2019. All expert discovery must be completed by all parties on or before March 13, 2020. “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). All discovery motions must be filed within 30 days of the event giving rise to the dispute. For oral discovery, the event giving rise to the dispute is the completion of the transcript of the relevant portion of the deposition. For written discovery, the event giving rise to the discovery dispute is the date of service of the response, not the date on which counsel reach an impasse in meet and confer efforts. If a party fails to provide a discovery response, the event giving rise to the discovery dispute is the date response was due.

         The Court's procedures for resolving discovery disputes are set forth in Magistrate Judge Michael S. Berg's Civil Chambers Rules, which are posted on the Court's website. 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.

         6. A Mandatory Settlement Conference shall be conducted on November 18, 2019, at 1:30 p.m., in the chambers of Magistrate Judge Michael S. Berg located at 221 West Broadway, Suite 3145, San Diego, CA 92101. All discussions at the Mandatory Settlement Conference will be informal, off the record, privileged, and confidential. Counsel for any non-English speaking party is responsible for arranging for the appearance of an interpreter at the conference.

         a. Personal Appearance of Parties Required: All named parties, party representatives, including claims adjusters for insured defendants, as well as the principal attorney(s) responsible for the litigation, must be present in person and legally and factually prepared to discuss and resolve the case. Counsel appearing without their clients (whether or not counsel has been given settlement authority) will be cause for immediate imposition of sanctions and may also result in the immediate termination of the conference.

         b. Full Settlement Authority Required: A party or party representative with full settlement authority[1] must be present at the conference. Retained outside corporate counsel shall not appear on behalf of a corporation as the party representative who has the authority to negotiate and enter into a settlement. A government entity may be excused from this requirement so long as the government attorney who attends the Mandatory Settlement Conference has (1) primary responsibility for handling the case, and (2) authority to negotiate and recommend settlement offers to the government official(s) having ultimate settlement authority.

         c. Confidential Settlement Statements Required: On or before November 11, 2019, the parties shall submit directly to Magistrate Judge Berg's chambers (via hand delivery or by e-mail to the Court at efileberg@casd.uscourts.gov), confidential settlement statements. The statements are limited to ten (10) pages, plus an additional ten (10) pages of exhibits. Each party's settlement statement must outline (1) the nature of the case and the claims, (2) position on liability or defenses; (3) position regarding settlement of the case with a specific demand/offer for settlement, and (4) any previous settlement negotiations or mediation efforts. The Mandatory Settlement Conference statement must not merely repeat what was contained in the Early Neutral Evaluation conference brief or any earlier settlement brief. The settlement statement must specifically identify what the discovery process revealed and the effect that the evidence has on the issues in the case. To the extent specific discovery responses, portions of ...


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.