Belangue v. Costco Wholesale Corporation

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. California
DecidedJuly 9, 2024
Docket3:23-cv-01850
StatusUnknown

This text of Belangue v. Costco Wholesale Corporation (Belangue v. Costco Wholesale Corporation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Belangue v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, (S.D. Cal. 2024).

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 ERLINDA BELANGUE, Case No.: 23-cv-01850-W-JLB

13 Plaintiff, ORDER REGARDING MOTIONS TO 14 v. AMEND THE SCHEDULING ORDER 15 COSTCO WHOLESALE

CORPORATION, et al., 16 [ECF Nos. 39; 40] Defendants. 17 18 19 Before the Court are Defendant’s Motion to Amend the Scheduling Order 20 (ECF No. 39) and Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend the Scheduling Order (ECF No. 40). The 21 Court finds good cause to amend the expert disclosures deadline and the rebuttal expert 22 disclosure deadline by 30 days each and the deadline to complete expert discovery by 21 23 days for all parties. Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion (ECF No. 39) is GRANTED in 24 part, Plaintiff’s Motion (ECF No. 40) is GRANTED, and IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 25 1. By August 14, 2024, each party shall comply with the disclosure provisions 26 in Rule 26(a)(2)(A) and (B) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This disclosure 27 requirement applies to all persons retained or specially employed to provide expert 28 testimony, or whose duties as an employee of the party regularly involve the giving of 1 expert testimony. Except as provided in the paragraph below, any party that fails to 2 make these disclosures shall not, absent substantial justification, be permitted to use 3 evidence or testimony not disclosed at any hearing or at the time of trial. In addition, 4 the Court may impose sanctions as permitted by Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c). 5 2. Any party shall supplement its disclosure regarding contradictory or rebuttal 6 evidence under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(D) and 26(e) by 7 August 28, 2024. 8 3. All expert discovery shall be completed by all parties by September 16, 2024. 9 The parties shall comply with the same procedures set forth in the paragraph governing 10 fact discovery. 11 4. Failure to comply with this section or any other discovery order of the court 12 may result in the sanctions provided for in Fed. R. Civ. P. 37, including a prohibition on 13 the introduction of experts or other designated matters in evidence. 14 5. All other pretrial motions must be filed by September 23, 2024. Counsel for 15 the moving party must obtain a motion hearing date from the law clerk of the judge who 16 will hear the motion. The period of time between the date you request a motion date and 17 the hearing date may vary from one district judge to another. Please plan accordingly. 18 Failure to make a timely request for a motion date may result in the motion not being heard. 19 Motions in limine are to be filed as directed in the Local Rules, or as otherwise set by the 20 district judge. 21 6. A Mandatory Settlement Conference (“MSC”) will be held by video 22 conference1 on September 16, 2024, at 1:45 PM before Magistrate Judge Jill L. 23

24 1 If any party believes the MSC is more likely to be successful if conducted in-person, 25 that party shall meet and confer on the issue with the other parties. After meeting and conferring, and no later than 60 days before the MSC, the parties shall leave a joint 26 voicemail with chambers at (619) 557-6624 indicating which of the parties requests an in- 27 person MSC. In the voicemail, the parties shall leave three mutually available dates for a telephonic status conference to discuss whether the MSC should be held in-person. The 28 1 Burkhardt. Mandatory directions for participating in the MSC by video conference 2 are attached hereto. The purpose of the MSC is to permit an informal, candid discussion 3 between the attorneys, parties, and the settlement judge of every aspect of the lawsuit in an 4 effort to achieve a mediated resolution of the case. All MSC discussions will be off the 5 record, privileged, and confidential. See CivLR 16.3.h. 6 Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 16.3, all party representatives and claims adjusters for 7 insured defendants with full and unlimited authority2 to negotiate and enter into a binding 8 settlement, as well as the principal attorney(s) responsible for the litigation, must be present 9 and legally and factually prepared to discuss and resolve the case at the MSC. In the case 10 of an entity, an authorized representative of the entity who is not retained outside counsel 11 must be present and must have discretionary authority to commit the entity to pay an 12 amount up to the amount of the Plaintiff’s prayer (excluding punitive damages prayers). 13 The purpose of this requirement is to have representatives present who can settle the case 14 during the course of the conference without consulting a superior. 15 Counsel for a United States government entity may be excused from this 16 requirement so long as the government attorney who attends the MSC conference (1) has 17 primary responsibility for handling the case, and (2) may negotiate settlement offers which 18 the attorney is willing to recommend to the government official having ultimate settlement 19 authority. 20 /// 21 22 23 2 “Full authority to settle” means that the individuals at the settlement conference must be authorized to fully explore settlement options and to agree at that time to any settlement 24 terms acceptable to the parties. Heileman Brewing Co., Inc. v. Joseph Oat Corp., 871 F.2d 25 648 (7th Cir. 1989). The person needs to have “unfettered discretion and authority” to change the settlement position of a party. Pitman v. Brinker Int’l., Inc., 216 F.R.D. 481, 26 485–86 (D. Ariz. 2003). The purpose of requiring a person with unlimited settlement 27 authority to attend the conference includes that the person’s view of the case may be altered during the face-to-face conference. Id. at 486. A limited or a sum certain of authority is 28 1 Failure to attend the MSC or obtain proper excuse will be considered grounds 2 for sanctions. 3 7. No later than 21 days before the MSC, the parties shall exchange formal 4 settlement proposals, as required by § III.A. of Judge Burkhardt’s Civil Chambers Rules. 5 No later than 14 days before the MSC, the parties shall meet and confer in person or 6 telephonically, as required by § III.B. of Judge Burkhardt’s Civil Chambers Rules. 7 8. No later than September 6, 2024, counsel (and any unrepresented parties) 8 shall lodge confidential MSC statements with Judge Burkhardt’s chambers via e-mail at 9 efile_Burkhardt@casd.uscourts.gov. The parties’ MSC statements shall comply with § 10 III.C. of Judge Burkhardt’s Civil Chambers Rules. 11 9. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1.f.3.c, if an opposing party fails to file 12 opposition papers in the time and manner required by Civil Local Rule 7.1.e.2, that failure 13 may constitute a consent to the granting of a motion or other request for ruling by the court. 14 Accordingly, all parties are ordered to abide by the terms of Local Rule 7.1.e.2 or otherwise 15 face the prospect of any pretrial motion being granted as an unopposed motion pursuant to 16 Civil Local Rule 7.1.f.3.c. Should either party choose to file or oppose a motion for 17 summary judgment or partial summary judgment, no Separate Statement of Disputed or 18 Undisputed Facts is required. 19 10. Despite the requirements of Civil Local Rule 16.1.f.2, neither party is required 20 to file a Memorandum of Contentions of Fact and Law at any time. The parties shall instead 21 focus their efforts on drafting and submitting a proposed pretrial order by the time and date 22 specified by Civil Local Rule 16.1.f.6.b.

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

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Belangue v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/belangue-v-costco-wholesale-corporation-casd-2024.