H.W.J. Designs for Agribusiness, Inc. v. Rethceif Enterprises, LLC

          KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP, Steven D. Moore, Benjamin M. Kleinman, KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP, Stephen C. Hall, Allison L. Brown, WYATT, TARRANT & COMBS, LLP, Mark Vorder-Bruegge, Jr, Matthew M. Lubozynski, WYATT, TARRANT & COMBS, LLP Attorneys for Defendant L.P. BROWN COMPANY, INC.

          Victor De Gyarfas, FOLEY & LARDNER LLP, Michael Houston, Andrew M. Gross, R. Spencer Montei, FOLEY & LARDNER LLP, Pavan Agarwal, FOLEY & LARDNER LLP, FOLEY & LARDNER LLP, Attorneys for Plaintiffs H.W.J. Designs for Agribusiness, Inc. and Samuel, Son & Co. (USA) Inc.

          R. Eric Gaum, TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP, Ryan O. White, TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP, Jaimin H. Shah, TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP, E. Upper Wacker Dr., James H. Wilkins, WILKINS, DROLSHAGEN & CZESHINSKI LLP., Attorneys for Defendant Rethceif Enterprises, LLC.

          JOINT MOTION FOR CONTINUATION OF EXPERT DISCLOSURE DEADLINES; ORDER (DOC. 163)

          SHEILA K. OBERTO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         The Parties hereby jointly move the Court to continue the deadlines for opening and rebuttal expert disclosures. This request is distinct from the previous joint request regarding discovery deadlines (Dkt. 146), which the Court graciously granted (Dkt. 147).

         As noted when the Parties made that earlier request, the Parties are working diligently to discharge all remaining discovery obligations. In particular, the Parties have finalized logistics for all remaining depositions. In order to meet the discovery schedule, the Parties “double-tracked” depositions: depositions (in different locations and of different witnesses) would be conducted at the same time by having different members of each side's legal team attend the double-tracked depositions.

         However, a key member of Defendants' team of counsel has to unexpectedly confront a series of medical emergencies. Plaintiff has responded with courtesy and professionalism, and the Parties have rescheduled the affected depositions.

         For these rescheduled depositions to be taken into account in the expert disclosures, the Parties need, and therefore respectfully request, an additional two weeks to prepare those disclosures. The Parties also request an associated continuation of the current deadline for rebuttal expert disclosures, but to minimize the impact on the overall schedule the Parties have agreed to compress the time period to prepare those rebuttal disclosures. The parties request only a one week extension of that deadline. This is reflected in the table below. The proposed changes impact neither the deadlines for the overall completion of expert discovery, the deadlines for non-dispositive and dispositive motions, nor the trial date.

Event	Current Deadline (Dkt. 147)	Proposed Deadline
Expert disclosures	January 13, 2020	January 27, 2020
Rebuttal expert disclosures	February 17, 2020	February 24, 2020

         Thus, pursuant to E.D. Cal. Local Rule 144(a) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 6, the Parties seek the Court's approval to continue the afore-mentioned deadlines.

         ORDER

         Having reviewed the Parties' JOINT MOTION FOR CONTINUATION OF EXPERT DISCLOSURE DEADLINES (Doc. 163), and for good cause shown (see Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4)), the Motion is GRANTED, and the Court MODIFIES the Scheduling Order as follows: Expert disclosures are now due ...