Caputo v. Amazon.com Services, LLC

District Court, E.D. California·Decided December 7, 2023·No. 1:23-cv-01346·Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 11 PATRICIA CAPUTO, Case No. 1:23-cv-01346-NODJ-CDB 12 Plaintiff, SCHEDULING ORDER (Fed. R. Civ. P. 16)

13 v. Discovery Deadlines: - Rule 26 Disclosures: January 22, 2024 14 AMAZON.COM SERVICES, LLC. - Amended Pleadings: February 9, 2024 - Expert Disclosures: June 21, 2024 15 Defendant. - Rebuttal Disclosures: July 19, 2024 - Fact Discovery Cut-Off: June 7, 2024 16 - Expert Discovery Cut-Off: August 19, 2024 - Mid-Discovery Status Conference: April 26, 17 2024, at 9:30 a.m., in Bakersfield Federal Courthouse 510 19th Street, Bakersfield, CA 18 93301

19 Non-Dispositive Motion Deadlines: - Filing: September 2, 2024 20 - Hearing: On October 7, 2024, at 10:30 a.m., Bakersfield Federal Courthouse 21 Dispositive Motion Deadlines: 22 - Filing: November 4, 2024 - Hearing: On/before December 9, 2024, 23 1:30 p.m, in Robert E. Coyle Federal Courthouse, Fresno, Courtroom 1, 8th Floor 24 Pre-Trial Conference: January 21, 2025, at 1:30 25 p.m., in Fresno Federal Courthouse

26 Trial: March 18, 2025, at 8:30 a.m., in Fresno Federal Courthouse 27 28 1 On June 26, 2023, Plaintiff Rodney Edward Bowser commenced this action in the Superior 2 Court of the State of California, County of Kern. Defendant Amazon.com Services, LLC, removed 3 the case to this Court on September 11, 2023. In her complaint, Plaintiff raises the following claims 4 against Defendant: (1) Disability Discrimination in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing 5 Act (“FEHA”); (2) Failure to Engage in Good Faith Interactive Process in violation of FEHA; (3) 6 Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodation in violation of FEHA; and (4) Retaliation in violation 7 of FEHA. 8 I. Date of Scheduling Conference 9 The parties convened via Zoom videoconference for a scheduling conference before 10 Magistrate Judge Christopher D. Baker on December 7, 2023. 11 II. Appearances of Counsel 12 Nick Yasman appeared on behalf of Plaintiff. 13 Rodolfo E. Rivera Aquino appeared on behalf of Defendant. 14 III. Magistrate Judge Consent: 15 Currently there is no joint consent to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. 16 Notice of Congested Docket and Court Policy of Trailing 17 Due to the District Judges’ heavy caseload, the adopted policy of the Fresno Division of the 18 Eastern District is to trail all civil cases. The parties are hereby notified that for a trial date set before a 19 District Judge, the parties will trail indefinitely behind any higher priority criminal or older civil case 20 set on the same date until a courtroom becomes available. The trial date will not be reset. 21 Further, as of the date of entry of this scheduling order, this matter is assigned to “No District 22 Court Judge (NODJ)” until a new district judge is appointed.1 23 The Magistrate Judges’ availability is far more realistic and accommodating to parties than that 24 of the District Judges who carry the heaviest caseloads in the nation and who must prioritize criminal 25 and older civil cases over more recently filed civil cases. A Magistrate Judge may conduct trials, 26

27 1 Contact information for the NODJ chambers and courtroom deputy can be found at 28 https://www.caed.uscourts.gov/caednew/index.cfm/judges/all-judges/united-states-district-judge- nodj/. Proposed orders for a District Judge in this case should be sent to 1 including entry of final judgment, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 73, 2 and Local Rule 305. Any appeal from a judgment entered by a Magistrate Judge is taken directly to the 3 United States Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit. 4 Therefore, the parties are directed to consider consenting to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction to 5 conduct all further proceedings, including trial, and to file a consent/decline form (provided by the 6 Court at the inception of this case) indicating whether they will consent to the jurisdiction of the 7 Magistrate Judge. 8 IV. Pleading Amendment 9 Any motions to amend the pleadings or substitute “Doe” defendants must be filed by February 10 9, 2024. Filing a motion and/or stipulation requesting leave to amend the pleadings does not reflect on 11 the propriety of the amendment or imply good cause to modify the existing schedule, if necessary. All 12 proposed amendments must (A) be supported by good cause pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b) if the 13 amendment requires any modification to the existing schedule, see Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, 14 Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992), and (B) establish, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a), that such an 15 amendment is not (1) prejudicial to the opposing party, (2) the product of undue delay, (3) proposed in 16 bad faith, or (4) futile, see Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). 17 V. Discovery Plan and Cut-Off Date 18 The parties shall exchange the initial disclosures required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) by no later 19 than January 22, 2024. 20 The parties are ordered to complete all discovery pertaining to non-experts on or before June 7, 21 2024, and all discovery pertaining to experts on or before August 19, 2024. 22 The parties are directed to disclose all expert witnesses2, in writing, on or before June 21, 2024, 23 and to disclose all rebuttal experts on or before July 19, 2024. The written designation of retained and 24 non-retained experts shall be made pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 26(a)(2), (A), (B), and (C) and shall 25 include all information required thereunder. Failure to designate experts in compliance with this order 26 27 28 2 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 may result in the Court excluding the testimony or other evidence offered through such experts that are 2 not disclosed pursuant to this order. 3 The provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4) and (5) shall apply to all discovery relating to experts 4 and their opinions. Experts must be fully prepared to be examined on all subjects and opinions 5 included in the designation. Failure to comply will result in the imposition of sanctions, which may 6 include striking the expert designation and preclusion of expert testimony. 7 The provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e) regarding a party’s duty to timely supplement 8 disclosures and responses to discovery requests will be strictly enforced. 9 A mid-discovery status conference is scheduled for April 26, 2024, at 9:30 a.m. before Judge 10 Baker. Counsel SHALL file a joint mid-discovery status conference report no later than one week 11 before the conference. Counsel also SHALL lodge the joint status report via e-mail to 12 CDBorders@caed.uscourts.gov. The joint status report SHALL outline the discovery counsel have 13 completed and that which needs to be completed as well as any impediments to completing the 14 discovery within the deadlines set forth in this order.

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

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

Caputo v. Amazon.com Services, LLC (Caputo 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)