Bashinski Jr. v. United States

District Court, S.D. California·Decided September 8, 2023·No. 3:23-cv-01026·Unknown

Opinion

MARTIN MACK BASHINSKI JR., Case No.: 23-cv-01026-JO-JLB

Plaintiff, SCHEDULING ORDER v. REGULATING DISCOVERY AND OTHER PRE-TRIAL PROCEEDINGS Defendant. Pursuant to Rule 16.1(d) of the Local Rules, a Case Management Conference was held on September 7, 2023. After consulting with the attorneys of record for the parties and being advised of the status of the case, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. The Court understands that parties to litigation often enter into stipulations that a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information not be revealed or be revealed only in specified way. Any motion for a protective order entering such stipulation(s) in this case shall be filed as a joint motion no later than October 5, 2023, and comply with § VI of Magistrate Judge Jill L. Burkhardt’s Civil Chambers Rules. The parties may use Judge Burkhardt’s model protective order, which is available on the Court’s website under her Chambers Rules. If the need for a protective order is not initially apparent to the parties and only becomes apparent due to a later development in the case, the parties must seek leave to file a late motion for protective order. Any such motion shall be supported by good cause, which includes an explanation as to why the parties could not have anticipated the need for a protective order. 2. Any motion to join other parties, to amend the pleadings, or to file additional pleadings shall be filed by November 2, 2023. 3. All fact discovery shall be completed by all parties by May 7, 2024. “Completed” means that all discovery under Rules 30-36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and discovery subpoenas under Rule 45, must be initiated a sufficient period of time in advance of the cut-off date, so that it may be completed by the cut-off date, taking into account the times for service, notice and response as set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Counsel shall promptly and in good faith meet and confer with regard to all discovery disputes in compliance with Local Rule 26.1(a). The Court expects counsel to make every effort to resolve all disputes without court intervention through the meet and confer process. Discovery disputes must be brought to the Court’s attention in the time and manner required by § V of Judge Burkhardt’s Civil Chambers Rules. All discovery disputes must be raised within 30 calendar days of the service of an objection, answer, or response that becomes the subject of dispute, or the passage of a discovery due date without response or production, and only after counsel (and any unrepresented parties) have met and conferred to resolve the dispute. See J. Burkhardt Civ. Chambers R. § V. A failure to comply in this regard will result in a waiver of a party’s discovery issue. Absent an order of the court, no stipulation continuing or altering this requirement will be recognized by the court.

1 https://www.casd.uscourts.gov/Judges/burkhardt/docs/Burkhardt%20Model 4. The parties shall designate their respective experts in writing by March 12, 2024. The parties must identify any person who may be used at trial to present evidence pursuant to Rules 702, 703 or 705 of the Fed. R. Evid. This requirement is not limited to retained experts. The date for exchange of rebuttal experts shall be by April 9, 2024. The written designations shall include the name, address and telephone number of the expert and a reasonable summary of the testimony the expert is expected to provide. The list shall also include the normal rates the expert charges for deposition and trial testimony. 5. By March 12, 2024, each party shall comply with the disclosure provisions in Rule 26(a)(2)(A) and (B) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This disclosure requirement applies to all persons retained or specially employed to provide expert testimony, or whose duties as an employee of the party regularly involve the giving of expert testimony. Except as provided in the paragraph below, any party that fails to make these disclosures shall not, absent substantial justification, be permitted to use evidence or testimony not disclosed at any hearing or at the time of trial. In addition, the Court may impose sanctions as permitted by Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c). 6. Any party shall supplement its disclosure regarding contradictory or rebuttal evidence under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(D) by April 9, 2024. 7. All expert discovery shall be completed by all parties by May 7, 2024. The parties shall comply with the same procedures set forth in the paragraph governing fact discovery. 8. Failure to comply with this section or any other discovery order of the court may result in the sanctions provided for in Fed. R. Civ. P. 37, including a prohibition on the introduction of experts or other designated matters in evidence. 9. All other pretrial motions must be filed by June 4, 2024. Counsel for the moving party must obtain a motion hearing date from the law clerk of the judge who will hear the motion. The period of time between the date you request a motion date and the hearing date may vary from one district judge to another. Please plan accordingly. Failure to make a timely request for a motion date may result in the motion not being heard. Motions in limine are to be filed as directed in the Local Rules, or as otherwise set by the district judge. 10. A Mandatory Settlement Conference (“MSC”) will be held by video conference2 on May 22, 2024 at 9:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Jill L. Burkhardt. Mandatory directions for participating in the MSC by video conference are attached hereto. The purpose of the MSC is to permit an informal, candid discussion between the attorneys, parties, and the settlement judge of every aspect of the lawsuit in an effort to achieve a mediated resolution of the case. All MSC discussions will be off the record, privileged, and confidential. See CivLR 16.3(h). Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 16.3, all party representatives and claims adjusters for insured defendants with full and unlimited authority3 to negotiate and enter into a binding settlement, as well as the principal attorney(s) responsible for the litigation, must be present and legally and factually prepared to discuss and resolve the case at the MSC. In the case of an entity, an authorized representative of the entity who is not retained outside counsel must be present and must have discretionary authority to commit the entity to pay an

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

Bashinski Jr. v. United States, (S.D. Cal. 2023).

Bashinski Jr. v. United States (Bashinski Jr. v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Pitman v. Brinker International, Inc.
216 F.R.D. 481 (D. Arizona, 2003)