Brock v. Amazon.com Services LLC

District Court, E.D. California·Decided July 13, 2023·No. 1:23-cv-00613·Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SCOTT BROCK, Case No. 1:23-cv-00613-ADA-CDB 12 Plaintiff, SCHEDULING ORDER (Fed. R. Civ. P. 16)

13 v. Discovery Deadlines: 14 AMAZON.COM SERVICES, LLC, - Amend Pleading: December 1, 2023 - Rule 26 Disclosures: July 27, 2023 15 Defendant. - Expert Disclosures: March 18, 2024 - Rebuttal Expert Disclosures: April 15, 2024 16 - Fact Discovery: March 4, 2024 - Expert Discovery: May 15, 2024 17 - Mid-Discovery Status Conference: January 22, 2024, at 10:00 a.m., in Bakersfield Federal 18 Courthouse 510 19th Street, Bakersfield, CA 93301

19 Non-Dispositive Motion Deadlines: - Filing: May 29, 2024 20 - Hearing: On or before July 8, 2024, at 10:30 a.m., in Bakersfield Federal Courthouse 21 Dispositive Motion Deadlines: 22 - Filing: August 5, 2024 - Hearing: On or before September 16, 2024, at 23 1:30 p.m, in Robert E. Coyle Federal Courthouse, Fresno, 24 Courtroom 1, 8th Floor

25 Pre-Trial Conference: February 24, 2025, at 1:30 p.m., in Fresno Federal Courthouse 26 Trial: April 22, 2025, at 8:30 a.m, in Fresno 27 Federal Courthouse 28 1 Plaintiff Scott Brock initiated this action on March 14, 2023, in the Superior Court of 2 California, County of Kern. Defendant Amazon.com Services LLC removed the action to this Court 3 on April 21, 2023. (Doc. 1). Plaintiff alleges that Defendant terminated Plaintiff’s employment in 4 violation of the California Family Rights Act and the Fair Employment and Housing Act. 5 I. Date of Scheduling Conference 6 July 13, 2023, before Magistrate Judge Christopher D. Baker, via Zoom videoconference. 7 II. Appearances of Counsel 8 Crystal Mohsin appeared on behalf of Plaintiff Scott Brock. 9 Jaya Bajaj and Emily Tripodi appeared on behalf of Amazon.com Services, LLC. 10 III. Magistrate Judge Consent: 11 The parties do not 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 1, 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 July 10 27, 2023. 11 The parties are ordered to complete all discovery pertaining to non-experts by March 4, 2024, 12 and all discovery pertaining to experts by May 15, 2024. 13 The parties are directed to disclose all expert witnesses1, in writing, by March 18, 2024, and to 14 disclose all rebuttal experts by April 15, 2024. The written designation of retained and non-retained 15 experts shall be made pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 26(a)(2), (A), (B), and (C) and shall include all 16 information required thereunder. Failure to designate experts in compliance with this order may result 17 in the Court excluding the testimony or other evidence offered through such experts that are not 18 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 January 22, 2024, at 10:00 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 / Informal Discovery Dispute Conferences 9 All non-dispositive pre-trial motions, including any discovery motions, shall be filed by May 10 29, 20242 and heard on or before July 8, 2024. Discovery motions shall be set before Magistrate Judge 11 Baker. For these hearings and at the direction of the Courtroom Deputy Clerk, the Court may direct 12 counsel to appear remotely (via Zoom).

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

Brock v. Amazon.com Services LLC, (E.D. Cal. 2023).

Brock v. Amazon.com Services LLC (Brock v. Amazon.com Services LLC) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

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