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.

Nordbye v. Mountain Lion Acquisitions Inc.

United States District Court, E.D. California

October 15, 2019

SCOTT NORDBYE, Plaintiff,
v.
MOUNTAIN LION ACQUISITIONS INC., ET. AL., Defendants.

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

         I. Date of Scheduling Conference

         The Scheduling Conference was held on October 15, 2019.

         II. Appearances of Counsel

         Yana Hart telephonically appeared on behalf of Plaintiff.

         Erfan Shariat and Erik Jones telephonically 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 may consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction in an effort to have your case adjudicated in a timely and cost effective manner. 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 October 18, 2019.

         V. Amendments to Pleading

         Any motions or stipulations requesting leave to amend the pleadings must be filed by no later than December 15, 2019. 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 May 4, 2020 and all expert discovery on or before June 26, 2020.

         The parties are directed to disclose all expert witnesses, in writing, on or before May 8, 2020 and to disclose all supplemental experts on or before May 29, 2020. 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 ...


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.