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.

Ansolabehere v. Dollar General Corp.

United States District Court, E.D. California

October 22, 2019

MELANIE ANSOLABEHERE, Plaintiff,
v.
DOLLAR GENERAL CORP, et al., Defendants.

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

          JENNIFER L. THURSTON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         I. Date of Scheduling Conference

         October 22, 2019.

         II. Appearances of Counsel

         Joseph Farzam appeared on behalf of Plaintiff. Derik Sarkesians appeared on behalf of Defendants.

         III. Magistrate Judge Consent: Notice of Congested Docket and Court Policy of Trailing

         Due to the District Judges' heavy caseload, the adopted policy of the Fresno Division of the Eastern District is to trail all civil cases. The parties are hereby notified that for a trial date set before a District Judge, the parties will trail indefinitely behind any higher priority criminal or older civil case set on the same date until a courtroom becomes available. The trial date will not be reset.

         The Magistrate Judges' availability is far more realistic and accommodating to parties than that of the U.S. District Judges who carry the heaviest caseloads in the nation and who must prioritize criminal and older civil cases over more recently filed civil cases. A United States Magistrate Judge may conduct trials, including entry of final judgment, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 73, and Local Rule 305. Any appeal from a judgment entered by a United States Magistrate Judge is taken directly to the United States Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit.

         The Fresno Division of the Eastern District of California, whenever possible, is utilizing United States Article III District Court Judges from throughout the nation as Visiting Judges. Pursuant to the Local Rules, Appendix A, such reassignments will be random, and the parties will receive no advance notice before their case is reassigned to an Article III District Court Judge from outside of the Eastern District of California.

         Therefore, within 10 days, the parties are directed to e-mail their consent or decline form directly to the Clerk's Office to the attention of Roxanne Gonzalez at RGonzalez@caed.uscourts.gov. The form should not be filed or otherwise transmitted to the assigned District Judge or Magistrate Judge.

         IV. Pleading Amendment Deadline

         Any requested pleading amendments are ordered to be filed, either through a stipulation or motion to amend, no later than January 10, 2020.

         V. Discovery Plan and Cut-Off Date

         The parties are ordered to exchange the initial disclosures required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(1) on or before October 28, 2019.

         The parties are ordered to complete all discovery pertaining to non-experts on or before August 28, 2020 and all discovery pertaining to experts on or before October 16, 2020. The parties have agreed each party may serve a up to 80 interrogatories.

         The parties are directed to disclose all expert witnesses[1], in writing, on or before September 4, 2020, and to disclose all rebuttal experts on or before September 25, 2020. The written designation of retained and non-retained experts shall be made pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 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 ...


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.