United States District Court, N.D. California
PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Following
the Further Case Management Conference held on December 19,
2019, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
I.
CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULE
Deadline to Move to Amend Pleadings: April 16, 2020
Fact Discovery Cut-Off: October 30, 2020
Expert Witness Disclosures: January 15, 2021
Rebuttal Expert Witness Disclosures: February 19, 2021
Expert Discovery Cutoff: March 19, 2021
Deadline for Hearing Dispositive Motions: June 17, 2021
Deadline for ADR-Program Mediation: May 29, 2020
A
further Case Management Conference is scheduled for April 23,
2020 in Courtroom E, 450 Golden Gate Ave., San Francisco, CA.
An updated Joint Case Management Conference Statement is due
April 16, 2020. The Court will be concerned with ensuring
that the parties have exchanged information sufficient to
engage in a meaningful mediation.
II.
TRIAL DATE
A. Jury
trial will begin on September 20, 2021, at 8:30 a.m., in
Courtroom E, 15th Floor, U.S. District Court, 450 Golden
Gate, San Francisco, California.
B. The
Court is expecting the length of the trial to not exceed 3
court days.
III.
PRETRIAL CONFERENCE
A Final
Pretrial Conference shall be held on August 19, 2021, at 2:00
p.m., in Courtroom E, 15th Floor. Lead trial counsel for each
party shall attend.
A. At
least seven days prior to date of the Final Pretrial
Conference the parties shall do the following:
1. In
lieu of preparing a Joint Pretrial Conference Statement, the
parties shall meet and confer in person, and then prepare and
file a jointly signed Proposed Final Pretrial Order that
contains: (a) a brief description of the substance of claims
and defenses which remain to be decided; (b) a statement of
all relief sought; (c) all stipulated facts; (d) a joint
exhibit list in numerical order, including a brief
description of the exhibit and Bates numbers, a blank column
for when it will be offered into evidence, a blank column for
when it may be received into evidence, and a blank column for
any limitations on its use; and (e) each party's separate
witness list for its case-in-chief witnesses (including those
appearing by deposition), including, for all such witnesses
(other than party plaintiffs or defendants), a short
statement of the substance of his/her testimony and,
separately, what, if any, non-cumulative testimony the
witness will offer. For each witness, state an hour/minute
time estimate for the direct examination (only). Items (d)
and (e) should be submitted as appendices to the proposed
order. The proposed order should also state which issues, if
any, are for the Court to decide, rather than the jury.
2. File
a joint set of proposed instructions on substantive issues of
law arranged in a logical sequence. If undisputed, an
instruction shall be identified as “Stipulated
Instruction No. ___Re___, ” with the blanks filled in
as appropriate. If disputed, each version of the instruction
shall be inserted together, back to back, in their logical
place in the overall sequence. Each such disputed instruction
shall be identified as, for example, “Disputed
Instruction No. ___Re___ Offered by___, ” with the
blanks filled in as appropriate. All disputed versions of the
same basic instruction shall bear the same number. Any
modifications to a form instruction must be plainly
identified. If a party does not have a counter version and
simply contends that no such instruction in any version
should be given, then that party should so state (and explain
why) on a separate page inserted in lieu of an alternate
version. With respect to form preliminary instructions,
general instructions, or concluding instructions, please
simply cite to the numbers of the requested instructions in
the current edition of the Ninth Circuit Model Jury
Instructions. Other than citing the numbers, the parties
shall not include preliminary, general, or concluding
instructions in the packet.
3. File
a separate memorandum of law in support of each party's
disputed instructions, if any, organized by instruction
number.
4. File
a joint set of proposed voir dire questions supplemented as
...