2 □ 3 □ 4 5 . 7 . 9 | SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 || LARISSA ARAUJO, et al., Case No.: 3:20-cv-01800-AJB-RBM 12 Plaintiff, ORDER: . 13 || V. (1) GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ EX WATER PARTE APPLICATION TO MODIFY 15 ° ° THE SCHEDULING ORDER TO 16 Defendants.| PERMIT LATER DEPOSITION AND . REMOTE APPEARANCES; 17 18 (2) SUA SPONTE GRANTING CONTINUANCE OF TIME; AND 19 0 (3) FIRST AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER . 21 22 [Doc. 90] 23 24 On January 11, 2022, Plaintiffs filed an ex parte application to modify the scheduling 25 || order to permit later deposition dates for expert witnesses and to allow experts to appear at 26 || depositions remotely by video (“Motion”). (Doc. 90.) This is Plaintiffs’ second request to 27 ||amend scheduling order dates. (See Docs. 63, 90.) The original scheduling order was 28 ||/entered February 4, 2021. (Doc. 23.) On November 18, 2021, the undersigned granted .
1 || Plaintiffs’ first request for an extension of the expert discovery and dispositive motion 2 ||deadlines. (Docs. 73, 90.) Now, Plaintiffs request the expert discovery and dispositive 3 || motion deadlines be extended by sixty (60) days and allow experts to appear remotely for 4 || depositions. 5 Plaintiffs allege good cause exists to extend dates and allow remote appearances 6 || because “[t]he parties have diligently scheduled virtually all of the experts to be deposed 7 before the February 7 deadline . ... [h]owever, a dispute has arisen [as] multiple experts 8 || have informed counsel that they are not willing to appear for their depositions in-person 9 || due to the recent spike in the Covid pandemic.” (Doc. 90 at 9.) Plaintiffs also allege 10 || Defendant Coachella Valley Water District (““CVWD”), Cross-Defendant Andre Dos- 11 |)Santos De-Sa (“De-Sa”), and Third-Party Defendant Imperial Irrigation District (“IID”) 12 || agree that any experts who wish to appear by video may do so.' (Id.) However, Defendant 13 ||County of Imperial (“County”) insists experts appear in-person but will allow counsel to 14 ||appear remotely. (d.) 15 On J anuary 12, 2022, Defendant County filed an opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion, in 16 which County claims depositions of important, retained expert witnesses “cannot be 17 || conducted effectively or efficiently via remote means.” (Doc. 92 at 6.) County also claims, 18 ||“all appropriate COVID-related precautions will be observed for those who attend the 19 || depositions in-person, including social distancing and mask-wearing.” (/d. at 5.) 20 As to Plaintiff's Motion to allow experts to appear at depositions remotely, the 21 ||Motion is GRANTED. Although Defendant County opposes this request, the undersigned 22 ||recognizes that the COVID-19 pandemic requires the parties to be flexible in completing 23 || deposition discovery in this litigation. The parties are encouraged to take steps that will 24 || enable deponents, deposing counsel, defending counsel, and attending counsel to complete 25 26 27 28 wretendants CVWD, De-Sa, and IID did not file a response in opposition to Plaintiffs’ otion.
1 || depositions in a manner that also take into account the needs of dependent care and personal 2 || health care. 3 The undersigned’s November 18, 2021 order granting Plaintiffs’ ex parte application 4 ||to modify interim deadlines set the expert discovery deadline on February 7, 2022 and the 5 || pretrial motions cutoff on March 9, 2022. (Doc. 73 at 3-4.) The undersigned’s February 6 2021 scheduling order set a mandatory settlement conference on May 25, 2022 and final 7 || pretrial conference on July 7, 2022. (Doc. 23 at 2-3.) 8 A scheduling order may be modified only upon a showing of good cause and with 9 || the judge’s consent. FED. R. CIv. P. 16(b)(4); see, e.g., Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, 10 Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992) (stating, “the focus of [the good cause] inquiry is 11 |/upon the moving party’s reasons for seeking modification.”). 12 As to Plaintiffs’ request to extend the expert discovery deadline and pretrial motions 13 || cutoff, the Motion is GRANTED. The undersigned finds good cause to modify the 14 ||/scheduling order given the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. To allow sufficient time to 15 |}accommodate remote appearances and ensure means to facilitate efficient and effective 16 || depositions, the undersigned sua sponte continues all dates as follows: 17 1. All expert discovery must be completed by all parties on or before April 8, 18 ||2022. "Completed" means that all discovery under Rules 30-36 of the Federal Rules of 19 Civil Procedure, and discovery subpoenas under Rule 45, must be initiated a sufficient 20 || period of time in advance of the cut-off date, so that it may be completed by the cut-off 21 || date, taking into account the times for service, notice and response as set forth in the Federal 22 ||Rules of Civil Procedure. Counsel must promptly and in good faith meet and confer with 23 regard to all discovery disputes in compliance with Local Rule 26.1.a. All discovery 24 motions must be filed within 30 days of the service of an objection, answer or response 25 || which becomes the subject of dispute or the passage of a discovery due date without 26 ||response or production, and only after counsel have met and conferred and have reached 27 impasse with regard to the particular issue. A failure to comply in this regard will result 28 ||in a waiver of a party’s discovery issue. Absent an order of the court, no stipulation .
1 || continuing or altering this requirement will be recognized by the court. 2 2. A Mandatory Settlement Conference will be conducted on July 20, 2022 at 3 ||9:30am in the chambers of Magistrate Judge Ruth Bermudez Montenegro, 2003 West 4 || Adams Ave., Suite 220, El Centro, California 92243 . Counsel or any party representing 5 ||himself or herself must submit confidential settlement briefs directly to the magistrate 6 ||judge’s chambers by July 8, 2022. All parties are ordered to read and to fully comply with 7 ||the Chamber Rules of the assigned magistrate judge. 8 3. All other dispositive motions, including those addressing Daubert issues, 9 ||must be filed on or before May 9, 2022. Please be advised that counsel for the moving 10 || party must obtain a motion hearing date from the law clerk of the judge who will hear the 11 |/motion. Motions in Limine are to be filed as directed in the Local Rules, or as otherwise 12 || set by Judge Battaglia. 13], 4, Counsel must comply with the pre-trial disclosure requirements of Fed. R. 14 || Civ. P. 26(a)(3) on or before August 8, 2022. 15 5. This order replaces the requirements under Civ. L. R. 16.1.f.6.c. No 16 || Memoranda of Law or Contentions of Fact are to be filed. - 17 6. The parties must meet and confer on or before August 15, 2022 and prepare 18 ||a proposed pretrial order in the form as set forth in Civ. L. R. 16.1.£.6. 19 The Court encourages the parties to consult with the assigned magistrate judge to 20 work out any problems in preparation of the proposed pretrial order. The court will 21 |\entertain any questions concerning the conduct of the trial at the pretrial conference. 22 7. Objections to Pre-trial disclosures must be filed no later than August 22, 2022. 23 8. The Proposed Final Pretrial Conference Order as described above must be 24 || prepared, served and lodged with the assigned district judge on or before August 29, 2022. 25 The final Pretrial Conference is scheduled on the calendar of the Honorable 26 || Anthony J. Battaglia on September 8, 2022 at 2:00pm. □ 27 10. A post trial settlement conference before a magistrate judge may be held 28 || within 30 days of verdict in the case.
1 11. The dates and times set forth herein will not be modified except for good cause 2 shown. 3 12.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
2 □ 3 □ 4 5 . 7 . 9 | SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 || LARISSA ARAUJO, et al., Case No.: 3:20-cv-01800-AJB-RBM 12 Plaintiff, ORDER: . 13 || V. (1) GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ EX WATER PARTE APPLICATION TO MODIFY 15 ° ° THE SCHEDULING ORDER TO 16 Defendants.| PERMIT LATER DEPOSITION AND . REMOTE APPEARANCES; 17 18 (2) SUA SPONTE GRANTING CONTINUANCE OF TIME; AND 19 0 (3) FIRST AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER . 21 22 [Doc. 90] 23 24 On January 11, 2022, Plaintiffs filed an ex parte application to modify the scheduling 25 || order to permit later deposition dates for expert witnesses and to allow experts to appear at 26 || depositions remotely by video (“Motion”). (Doc. 90.) This is Plaintiffs’ second request to 27 ||amend scheduling order dates. (See Docs. 63, 90.) The original scheduling order was 28 ||/entered February 4, 2021. (Doc. 23.) On November 18, 2021, the undersigned granted .
1 || Plaintiffs’ first request for an extension of the expert discovery and dispositive motion 2 ||deadlines. (Docs. 73, 90.) Now, Plaintiffs request the expert discovery and dispositive 3 || motion deadlines be extended by sixty (60) days and allow experts to appear remotely for 4 || depositions. 5 Plaintiffs allege good cause exists to extend dates and allow remote appearances 6 || because “[t]he parties have diligently scheduled virtually all of the experts to be deposed 7 before the February 7 deadline . ... [h]owever, a dispute has arisen [as] multiple experts 8 || have informed counsel that they are not willing to appear for their depositions in-person 9 || due to the recent spike in the Covid pandemic.” (Doc. 90 at 9.) Plaintiffs also allege 10 || Defendant Coachella Valley Water District (““CVWD”), Cross-Defendant Andre Dos- 11 |)Santos De-Sa (“De-Sa”), and Third-Party Defendant Imperial Irrigation District (“IID”) 12 || agree that any experts who wish to appear by video may do so.' (Id.) However, Defendant 13 ||County of Imperial (“County”) insists experts appear in-person but will allow counsel to 14 ||appear remotely. (d.) 15 On J anuary 12, 2022, Defendant County filed an opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion, in 16 which County claims depositions of important, retained expert witnesses “cannot be 17 || conducted effectively or efficiently via remote means.” (Doc. 92 at 6.) County also claims, 18 ||“all appropriate COVID-related precautions will be observed for those who attend the 19 || depositions in-person, including social distancing and mask-wearing.” (/d. at 5.) 20 As to Plaintiff's Motion to allow experts to appear at depositions remotely, the 21 ||Motion is GRANTED. Although Defendant County opposes this request, the undersigned 22 ||recognizes that the COVID-19 pandemic requires the parties to be flexible in completing 23 || deposition discovery in this litigation. The parties are encouraged to take steps that will 24 || enable deponents, deposing counsel, defending counsel, and attending counsel to complete 25 26 27 28 wretendants CVWD, De-Sa, and IID did not file a response in opposition to Plaintiffs’ otion.
1 || depositions in a manner that also take into account the needs of dependent care and personal 2 || health care. 3 The undersigned’s November 18, 2021 order granting Plaintiffs’ ex parte application 4 ||to modify interim deadlines set the expert discovery deadline on February 7, 2022 and the 5 || pretrial motions cutoff on March 9, 2022. (Doc. 73 at 3-4.) The undersigned’s February 6 2021 scheduling order set a mandatory settlement conference on May 25, 2022 and final 7 || pretrial conference on July 7, 2022. (Doc. 23 at 2-3.) 8 A scheduling order may be modified only upon a showing of good cause and with 9 || the judge’s consent. FED. R. CIv. P. 16(b)(4); see, e.g., Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, 10 Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992) (stating, “the focus of [the good cause] inquiry is 11 |/upon the moving party’s reasons for seeking modification.”). 12 As to Plaintiffs’ request to extend the expert discovery deadline and pretrial motions 13 || cutoff, the Motion is GRANTED. The undersigned finds good cause to modify the 14 ||/scheduling order given the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. To allow sufficient time to 15 |}accommodate remote appearances and ensure means to facilitate efficient and effective 16 || depositions, the undersigned sua sponte continues all dates as follows: 17 1. All expert discovery must be completed by all parties on or before April 8, 18 ||2022. "Completed" means that all discovery under Rules 30-36 of the Federal Rules of 19 Civil Procedure, and discovery subpoenas under Rule 45, must be initiated a sufficient 20 || period of time in advance of the cut-off date, so that it may be completed by the cut-off 21 || date, taking into account the times for service, notice and response as set forth in the Federal 22 ||Rules of Civil Procedure. Counsel must promptly and in good faith meet and confer with 23 regard to all discovery disputes in compliance with Local Rule 26.1.a. All discovery 24 motions must be filed within 30 days of the service of an objection, answer or response 25 || which becomes the subject of dispute or the passage of a discovery due date without 26 ||response or production, and only after counsel have met and conferred and have reached 27 impasse with regard to the particular issue. A failure to comply in this regard will result 28 ||in a waiver of a party’s discovery issue. Absent an order of the court, no stipulation .
1 || continuing or altering this requirement will be recognized by the court. 2 2. A Mandatory Settlement Conference will be conducted on July 20, 2022 at 3 ||9:30am in the chambers of Magistrate Judge Ruth Bermudez Montenegro, 2003 West 4 || Adams Ave., Suite 220, El Centro, California 92243 . Counsel or any party representing 5 ||himself or herself must submit confidential settlement briefs directly to the magistrate 6 ||judge’s chambers by July 8, 2022. All parties are ordered to read and to fully comply with 7 ||the Chamber Rules of the assigned magistrate judge. 8 3. All other dispositive motions, including those addressing Daubert issues, 9 ||must be filed on or before May 9, 2022. Please be advised that counsel for the moving 10 || party must obtain a motion hearing date from the law clerk of the judge who will hear the 11 |/motion. Motions in Limine are to be filed as directed in the Local Rules, or as otherwise 12 || set by Judge Battaglia. 13], 4, Counsel must comply with the pre-trial disclosure requirements of Fed. R. 14 || Civ. P. 26(a)(3) on or before August 8, 2022. 15 5. This order replaces the requirements under Civ. L. R. 16.1.f.6.c. No 16 || Memoranda of Law or Contentions of Fact are to be filed. - 17 6. The parties must meet and confer on or before August 15, 2022 and prepare 18 ||a proposed pretrial order in the form as set forth in Civ. L. R. 16.1.£.6. 19 The Court encourages the parties to consult with the assigned magistrate judge to 20 work out any problems in preparation of the proposed pretrial order. The court will 21 |\entertain any questions concerning the conduct of the trial at the pretrial conference. 22 7. Objections to Pre-trial disclosures must be filed no later than August 22, 2022. 23 8. The Proposed Final Pretrial Conference Order as described above must be 24 || prepared, served and lodged with the assigned district judge on or before August 29, 2022. 25 The final Pretrial Conference is scheduled on the calendar of the Honorable 26 || Anthony J. Battaglia on September 8, 2022 at 2:00pm. □ 27 10. A post trial settlement conference before a magistrate judge may be held 28 || within 30 days of verdict in the case.
1 11. The dates and times set forth herein will not be modified except for good cause 2 shown. 3 12. Dates and times for hearings on motions must be approved by the Court's clerk 4 || before notice of hearing is served. 5 13. Briefs or memoranda in support of or in opposition to any pending motion 6 || must not exceed twenty-five (25) pages in length without leave ofa district judge. No reply 7 memorandum will exceed ten (10) pages without leave of a district judge. Briefs and 8 || memoranda exceeding ten (10) pages in length must have a table of contents and a table of 9 || authorities cited. . 11 DATE: January 21, 2022 ~My 1 (ee nade Madlagr)—__ 3 HON. RUTH BE EZ MONTENEGRO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 15 . 16 □ 18- . 19 □ 20 . 21 22 23 24 25 26 . 27 28 |].