Hanson v. Theranest, LLC

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. California
DecidedSeptember 3, 2024
Docket3:24-cv-00086
StatusUnknown

This text of Hanson v. Theranest, LLC (Hanson v. Theranest, LLC) 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
Hanson v. Theranest, LLC, (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 LAURA HANSON, Case No.: 24-cv-00086-AGS-JLB 13 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION TO CONTINUE 14 v. DISCOVERY DEADLINES AND 15 THERANEST, LLC, et al., RELATED DATES

16 Defendants. [ECF No. 39] 17

18 Before the Court is the parties’ Joint Motion to Continue Discovery Deadlines and 19 Related Dates. (ECF No. 39.) Good cause appearing, the parties’ Joint Motion is 20 GRANTED, and the Scheduling Order (ECF No. 19) is AMENDED as follows: 21 Deadline to Propound Written 22 September 30, 2024 Discovery 23 Fact Discovery Completion December 6, 2024 24 Expert Witness Designations January 6, 2025 Supplemental and Rebuttal Expert 25 January 21, 2025 Witness Designations 26 Expert Witness Disclosures February 4, 2025 27 Rebuttal Expert Witness Designations February 18, 2025 and Disclosures 28 1 Expert Discovery Completion March 11, 2025 2 MSC Statements January 13, 2025 3 Mandatory Settlement Conference January 21, 2025, at 1:45 PM 4 Pretrial Motions January 30, 2025 Rule 26(a)(3) Disclosures/ 5 Memoranda of Contentions of Fact April 18, 2025 6 and Law Meet and Confer on the PTO/ 7 April 25, 2025 Motion in Limine Deadline 8 Draft PTO to Defense Counsel May 2, 2025 9 Lodge PTO/ May 9, 2025 Motion in Limine Responses 10 Final Pretrial Conference May 16, 2025, at 10:30 AM 11 12 1. Counsel1 must refer to Judge Schopler’s Chambers Rules—Civil, as well as 13 the undersigned Magistrate Judge’s chambers rules, which are accessible via the Court’s 14 website at www.casd.uscourts.gov. 15 2. All discovery must be complete by the above date. “Complete” means that 16 all discovery under Rules 30 through 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and 17 discovery subpoenas under Rule 45, must be initiated sufficiently before the cut-off date, 18 so that it may be completed by the cut-off date, accounting for the times for service, notice, 19 and response as set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Unless the Court orders 20 otherwise, the Court will not recognize any stipulation continuing or altering this 21 requirement. 22 Counsel must promptly and in good faith meet and confer with regard to all 23 discovery disputes in compliance with Civil Local Rule 26.1.a. Discovery disputes must 24 be brought to the Court’s attention in the time and manner required by § V of Judge 25 Burkhardt’s Civil Chambers Rules. All discovery disputes must be raised within 30 26

27 1 For purposes of this Order, the term “counsel” includes parties representing 28 1 calendar days of the service of an objection, answer, or response that becomes the 2 subject of dispute, or the passage of a discovery due date without response or production, 3 and only after counsel (and any unrepresented parties) have met and conferred to resolve 4 the dispute. See J. Burkhardt Civ. Chambers R. § V. A failure to comply in this regard 5 will result in a waiver of a party’s discovery issue. Absent an order of the court, no 6 stipulation continuing or altering this requirement will be recognized by the court. 7 3. A Mandatory Settlement Conference (“MSC”) will be held by video 8 conference2 before Magistrate Judge Jill L. Burkhardt. Mandatory directions for 9 participating in the MSC by video conference are attached hereto. The purpose of the 10 MSC is to permit an informal, candid discussion between the attorneys, parties, and the 11 settlement judge of every aspect of the lawsuit in an effort to achieve a mediated resolution 12 of the case. All MSC discussions will be off the record, privileged, and confidential. See 13 CivLR 16.3.h. 14 Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 16.3, all party representatives and claims adjusters for 15 insured defendants with full and unlimited authority3 to negotiate and enter into a binding 16 settlement, as well as the principal attorney(s) responsible for the litigation, must be present 17

18 2 If any party believes the MSC is more likely to be successful if conducted in-person, 19 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 20 voicemail with chambers at (619) 557-6624 indicating which of the parties requests an in- 21 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 22 final decision will be made by the Court. 23 3 “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 and legally and factually prepared to discuss and resolve the case at the MSC. In the case 2 of an entity, an authorized representative of the entity who is not retained outside counsel 3 must be present and must have discretionary authority to commit the entity to pay an 4 amount up to the amount of the Plaintiff’s prayer (excluding punitive damages prayers). 5 The purpose of this requirement is to have representatives present who can settle the case 6 during the course of the conference without consulting a superior. 7 Counsel for a United States government entity may be excused from this 8 requirement so long as the government attorney who attends the MSC conference (1) has 9 primary responsibility for handling the case, and (2) may negotiate settlement offers which 10 the attorney is willing to recommend to the government official having ultimate settlement 11 authority. 12 Failure to attend the MSC or obtain proper excuse will be considered grounds 13 for sanctions. 14 4. No later than 21 days before the MSC, the parties shall exchange formal 15 settlement proposals, as required by § III.A. of Judge Burkhardt’s Civil Chambers Rules. 16 No later than 14 days before the MSC, the parties shall meet and confer in person or 17 telephonically, as required by § III.B. of Judge Burkhardt’s Civil Chambers Rules. 18 5. No later than January 13, 2025, counsel (and any unrepresented parties) shall 19 lodge confidential MSC statements with Judge Burkhardt’s chambers via e-mail at 20 efile_Burkhardt@casd.uscourts.gov. The parties’ MSC statements shall comply with § 21 III.C. of Judge Burkhardt’s Civil Chambers Rules. 22 6. All pretrial motions must be filed by the above date. In this context, the term 23 “pretrial motions” includes summary-judgment motions, Daubert motions, and all other 24 motions before trial, other than motions in limine. Before filing any pretrial motion, 25 movant’s counsel must contact the appropriate judge’s chambers for a hearing date. 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 7. For the Final Pretrial Conference Order, the parties must meet and confer and 2 prepare a proposed order containing each category in Civil Local Rule 16.1.f.6, plus: 3 a. Exhibits: Each exhibit that will be offered in a redacted form must be 4 presented as set out in Judge Schopler’s chambers rules. Any dispute concerning 5 redactions should be filed as a separate motion in limine. 6 b. Pretrial-Disclosure Objections: Counsel must note any objections to 7 any other party’s pretrial disclosures. See Fed. R. Civ.

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

Related

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Hanson v. Theranest, LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hanson-v-theranest-llc-casd-2024.