Board of Trustees of the Kern County Electrical Workers Pension Fund v. Measurement Instrumentation and Controls, Inc.

District Court, E.D. California·Decided October 11, 2023·No. 1:23-cv-00744·Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 11 BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE KERN Case No. 1:23-cv-00744-ADA-CDB COUNTY ELECTRICAL WORKERS 12 PENSION FUND, et al SCHEDULING ORDER (Fed. R. Civ. P. 16) 13 Plaintiffs, Discovery Deadlines: 14 v. -Rule 26 Disclosures: October 19, 2023 -Expert Disclosures: April 22, 2024 15 MEASUREMENT -Rebuttal Disclosures: May 6, 2024 INSTRUMENTATION AND -Fact Discovery Cut-Off: April 8, 2024 16 CONTROLS, INC., et al. -Expert Discovery Cut-Off: June 12, 2024 -Mid-Discovery Status Conference: February 29, 17 Defendants. 2024, at 9:30 a.m., in Bakersfield Federal Courthouse 510 19th Street, Bakersfield, CA 18 93301 19 Non-Dispositive Motion Deadlines: -Filing: June 26, 2024 20 -Hearing: On August 5, 2024, at 10:30 a.m., Bakersfield Federal Courthouse 21 Dispositive Motion Deadlines: 22 -Filing: August 19, 2024 -Hearing: On/before September 23, 2024, 23 1:30 p.m, in Robert E. Coyle Federal Courthouse, Fresno, Courtroom 1, 8th Floor 24 Pre-Trial Conference: March 3, 2025, at 1:30 25 p.m., in Fresno Federal Courthouse 26 Trial: April 29, 2025, at 8:30 a.m, in Fresno Federal Courthouse 27 28 1 Plaintiffs initiated this action on May 14, 2023. (Doc. 1). Plaintiffs raises the following 2 claims against Defendants (1) violation of ERISA, and (2) accounting. 3 I. Date of Scheduling Conference 4 October 5, 2023, before Magistrate Judge Christopher D. Baker. 5 II. Appearances of Counsel 6 Tiffany Dawn Lena appeared on behalf of Plaintiffs. 7 Donald Charles Oldaker appeared on behalf of Defendant Key Staffing, Inc. 8 Bryan L. Hawkins appeared on behalf of Defendants Measurement Instrumentation and 9 Controls, Inc., Key Electric, Inc., Robert David Smith, and Sharyn Smith. 10 III. Magistrate Judge Consent: 11 Currently there is no joint consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction. 12 Notice of Congested Docket and Court Policy of Trailing 13 Due to the District Judges’ heavy caseload, the adopted policy of the Fresno Division of the 14 Eastern District is to trail all civil cases. The parties are hereby notified that for a trial date set before a 15 District Judge, the parties will trail indefinitely behind any higher priority criminal or older civil case 16 set on the same date until a courtroom becomes available. The trial date will not be reset. 17 The Magistrate Judges’ availability is far more realistic and accommodating to parties than that 18 of the District Judges who carry the heaviest caseloads in the nation and who must prioritize criminal 19 and older civil cases over more recently filed civil cases. A Magistrate Judge may conduct trials, 20 including entry of final judgment, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 73, 21 and Local Rule 305. Any appeal from a judgment entered by a Magistrate Judge is taken directly to the 22 United States Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit. 23 Therefore, the parties are directed to consider consenting to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction to 24 conduct all further proceedings, including trial, and to file a consent/decline form (provided by the 25 Court at the inception of this case) indicating whether they will consent to the jurisdiction of the 26 Magistrate Judge. 27 IV. Pleading Amendment 28 Any motions to amend the pleadings must be filed by December 5 2023. The parties are 1 advised that filing a motion and/or stipulation requesting leave to amend the pleadings does not reflect 2 on the propriety of the amendment or imply good cause to modify the existing schedule, if necessary. 3 All proposed amendments must (A) be supported by good cause pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b) if the 4 amendment requires any modification to the existing schedule, see Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, 5 Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992), and (B) establish, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a), that such an 6 amendment is not (1) prejudicial to the opposing party, (2) the product of undue delay, (3) proposed in 7 bad faith, or (4) futile, see Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). 8 V. Discovery Plan and Cut-Off Date 9 The parties shall exchange the initial disclosures required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) by no later 10 than October 19, 2023. 11 The parties are ordered to complete all discovery pertaining to non-experts on or before April 8, 12 2024, and all discovery pertaining to experts on or before June 12, 2024. 13 The parties are directed to disclose all expert witnesses1, in writing, on or before April 22, 14 2024, and to disclose all rebuttal experts on or before May 6, 2024. The written designation of retained 15 and non-retained experts shall be made pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 26(a)(2), (A), (B), and (C) and 16 shall include all information required thereunder. Failure to designate experts in compliance with this 17 order may result in the Court excluding the testimony or other evidence offered through such experts 18 that are not disclosed pursuant to this order. 19 The provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4) and (5) shall apply to all discovery relating to experts 20 and their opinions. Experts must be fully prepared to be examined on all subjects and opinions 21 included in the designation. Failure to comply will result in the imposition of sanctions, which may 22 include striking the expert designation and preclusion of expert testimony. 23 The provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e) regarding a party’s duty to timely supplement 24 disclosures and responses to discovery requests will be strictly enforced. 25 A mid-discovery status conference is scheduled for February 29, 2024, at 9:30 a.m. before 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 Magistrate Judge Christopher D. Baker. Counsel SHALL file a joint mid-discovery status conference 2 report no later than one week before the conference. Counsel also SHALL lodge the joint status report 3 via e-mail to CDBorders@caed.uscourts.gov. The joint status report SHALL outline the discovery 4 counsel have completed and that which needs to be completed as well as any impediments to 5 completing the discovery within the deadlines set forth in this order. Counsel SHALL discuss 6 settlement and certify in the joint status report (1) that they have met/conferred regarding settlement, 7 and (2) proposed dates for convening a settlement conference before a U.S. magistrate judge. 8 VI. Pre-Trial Motion Schedule 9 All non-dispositive pre-trial motions, including any discovery motions, shall be filed no later 10 than June 26, 20242 and heard on or before August 5, 2024. Discovery motions shall be set before 11 Magistrate Judge Baker. For these hearings and at the direction of the Courtroom Deputy Clerk, the 12 Court may direct counsel to appear remotely (via Zoom).

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

Board of Trustees of the Kern County Electrical Workers Pension Fund v. Measurement Instrumentation and Controls, Inc., (E.D. Cal. 2023).

Board of Trustees of the Kern County Electrical Workers Pension Fund v. Measurement Instrumentation and Controls, Inc. (Board of Trustees of the Kern County Electrical Workers Pension Fund v. Measurement Instrumentation and Controls, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

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