Aliaga Aguero v. Esnoz

District Court, E.D. California·Decided March 27, 2024·No. 1:22-cv-01237·Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 11 JOSE ANTONIO ALIAGA AGUERO, Case No. 1:22-cv-01237-KES-CDB 12 Plaintiff, SCHEDULING ORDER (Fed. R. Civ. P. 16)

13 v. Discovery Deadlines: - Rule 26 Disclosures: March 29, 2024 14 PHILLIP T. ESNOZ, et al., - Amended Pleadings: July 27, 2024 - Expert Disclosures: April 7, 2025 15 Defendants. - Rebuttal Disclosures: May 5, 2025 - Fact Discovery Cut-Off: March 24, 2025 16 - Expert Discovery Cut-Off: June 6, 2025 - Mid-Discovery Status Conference: February 4, 17 2025, at 9:30 a.m., in Bakersfield Federal Courthouse 510 19th Street, Bakersfield, CA 18 93301

19 Non-Dispositive Motion Deadlines: - Filing: June 23, 2025 20 - Hearing: July 25, 2025, at 10:30 a.m., Bakersfield Federal Courthouse 21 Dispositive Motion Deadlines: 22 - Filing: August 11, 2025 - Hearing: September 22, 2025 23 1:30 p.m, in Robert E. Coyle Federal Courthouse, Fresno, Courtroom 6, 7th floor 24 Pre-Trial Conference: January 26, 2026, at 1:30 25 p.m., in Fresno Federal Courthouse

26 Trial: March 24, 2026, at 9:00 a.m., before District Judge Kirk E. Sherriff 27

28 /// 1 Plaintiff initiated this action on September 27, 2022, by filing a complaint against 2 Defendants Western Range Association (“Western Range”) and Phillip T. Esnoz, doing business 3 as Phillip Esnoz Farms, as well as trustee and beneficiary of the Esnoz, Joe S. & Sharron L. Trust, 4 and as the successor in interest of Joe S. Esnoz, doing business as Esnoz Farms and Joe S. Esnoz 5 (“Esnoz Defendants”). (Doc. 1). Plaintiff alleges that he was employed by Defendants as a 6 sheepherder and that Defendants violated, among other things, California’s employment laws, the 7 Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (“TVPRA”) 18 U.S.C § 1589 et seq., and 8 engaged in related unfair business practices and failed to meet sheepherder standards. 9 The parties convened via Zoom videoconference for a scheduling conference before 10 Magistrate Judge Christopher D. Baker on March 26, 2024. Amelia Haney appeared on behalf of 11 Plaintiff, Ryan Porte appeared on behalf of the Esnoz Defendants, and Alexandra Mills appeared 12 on behalf of Western Range 13 I. Magistrate Judge Consent: 14 Currently the parties do not jointly consent to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. 15 Notice of Congested Docket and Court Policy of Trailing 16 Due to the District Judges’ heavy caseload, the adopted policy of the Fresno Division of the 17 Eastern District is to trail all civil cases. The parties are hereby notified that for a trial date set before a 18 District Judge, the parties will trail indefinitely behind any higher priority criminal or older civil case 19 set on the same date until a courtroom becomes available. The trial date will not be reset. 20 The Magistrate Judges’ availability is far more realistic and accommodating to parties than that 21 of the District Judges who carry the heaviest caseloads in the nation and who must prioritize criminal 22 and older civil cases over more recently filed civil cases. A Magistrate Judge may conduct trials, 23 including entry of final judgment, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 73, 24 and Local Rule 305. Any appeal from a judgment entered by a Magistrate Judge is taken directly to the 25 United States Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit. 26 Therefore, the parties are directed to consider consenting to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction to 27 conduct all further proceedings, including trial, and to file a consent/decline form (provided by the 28 Court at the inception of this case) indicating whether they will consent to the jurisdiction of the 1 Magistrate Judge. 2 II. Pleading Amendment 3 Any motions to amend the pleadings, including to substitute “Doe” defendants, must be filed by 4 July 27, 2024. Filing a motion and/or stipulation requesting leave to amend the pleadings does not 5 reflect on the propriety of the amendment or imply good cause to modify the existing schedule, if 6 necessary. All proposed amendments must (A) be supported by good cause pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 7 16(b) if the amendment requires any modification to the existing schedule, see Johnson v. Mammoth 8 Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992), and (B) establish, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a), that 9 such an amendment is not (1) prejudicial to the opposing party, (2) the product of undue delay, (3) 10 proposed in bad faith, or (4) futile, see Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). 11 III. Discovery Plan and Cut-Off Date 12 The parties shall exchange the initial disclosures required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) by no later 13 than March 29, 2024. 14 The parties are ordered to complete all discovery pertaining to non-experts on or before March 15 24, 2025, and all discovery pertaining to experts on or before June 6, 2025. 16 The parties are directed to disclose all expert witnesses1, in writing, on or before April 7, 2025, 17 and to disclose all rebuttal experts on or before May 5, 2025. The written designation of retained and 18 non-retained experts shall be made pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 26(a)(2), (A), (B), and (C) and shall 19 include all information required thereunder. Failure to designate experts in compliance with this order 20 may result in the Court excluding the testimony or other evidence offered through such experts that are 21 not disclosed pursuant to this order. 22 The provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4) and (5) shall apply to all discovery relating to experts 23 and their opinions. Experts must be fully prepared to be examined on all subjects and opinions 24 included in the designation. Failure to comply will result in the imposition of sanctions, which may 25 include striking the expert designation and preclusion of expert testimony. 26 27 28 1 In the event an expert will offer opinions related to an independent medical or mental health evaluation, the examination SHALL occur sufficiently in advance of the disclosure deadline so the 1 The provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e) regarding a party’s duty to timely supplement 2 disclosures and responses to discovery requests will be strictly enforced. 3 A mid-discovery status conference is scheduled for February 4, 2025, at 9:30 a.m. before 4 Judge Baker. Counsel SHALL file a joint mid-discovery status conference report no later than one 5 week before the conference. Counsel also SHALL lodge the joint status report via e-mail to 6 CDBorders@caed.uscourts.gov. The joint status report SHALL outline the discovery counsel have 7 completed and that which needs to be completed as well as any impediments to completing discovery 8 within the deadlines set forth in this order.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Aliaga Aguero v. Esnoz, (E.D. Cal. 2024).

Aliaga Aguero v. Esnoz (Aliaga Aguero v. Esnoz) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Foman v. Davis
371 U.S. 178 (Supreme Court, 1962)