Hector Mendivil v. Parts Authority, LLC

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. California
DecidedNovember 12, 2025
Docket3:25-cv-02498
StatusUnknown

This text of Hector Mendivil v. Parts Authority, LLC (Hector Mendivil v. Parts Authority, 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
Hector Mendivil v. Parts Authority, LLC, (S.D. Cal. 2025).

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 HECTOR MENDIVIL, Case No.: 25-cv-02498-WQH-JLB

13 Plaintiff, SCHEDULING ORDER 14 v. REGULATING DISCOVERY AND OTHER PRE-TRIAL 15 PARTS AUTHORITY, LLC, PROCEEDINGS 16 Defendant. 17 18 19 20 Pursuant to Rule 16.1.d of the Civil Local Rules, a Case Management Conference 21 was held on November 10, 2025. After consulting with the attorneys of record for the 22 parties and being advised of the status of the case, and good cause appearing, IT IS 23 HEREBY ORDERED: 24 1. The Court understands that parties to litigation often enter into stipulations 25 that a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information 26 not be revealed or be revealed only in specified way. Any motion for a protective order 27 entering such stipulation(s) in this case shall be filed as a joint motion no later than 28 November 21, 2025, and comply with § VI of Magistrate Judge Jill L. Burkhardt’s Civil 1 Chambers Rules. The parties may use Judge Burkhardt’s model protective order, which is 2 available on the Court’s website under her Chambers Rules.1 3 If the need for a protective order is not initially apparent to the parties and only 4 becomes apparent due to a later development in the case, the parties must seek leave to file 5 a late motion for protective order. Any such motion shall be supported by good cause, 6 which includes an explanation as to why the parties could not have anticipated the need for 7 a protective order. 8 2. Any motion to join other parties, to amend the pleadings, or to file additional 9 pleadings shall be filed by December 5, 2025. 10 3. All fact discovery shall be completed by all parties by April 17, 2026. 11 “Completed” means that all discovery under Rules 30–36 of the Federal Rules of Civil 12 Procedure, and discovery subpoenas under Rule 45, must be initiated a sufficient period of 13 time in advance of the cut-off date, so that it may be completed by the cut-off date, taking 14 into account the times for service, notice and response as set forth in the Federal Rules of 15 Civil Procedure. All interrogatories, requests for admission, and document production 16 requests must be served by February 20, 2026. 17 Counsel shall promptly and in good faith meet and confer with regard to all 18 discovery disputes in compliance with Civil Local Rule 26.1.a. The Court expects 19 counsel to make every effort to resolve all disputes without court intervention through the 20 meet and confer process. Discovery disputes must be brought to the Court’s attention in 21 the time and manner required by § V of Judge Burkhardt’s Civil Chambers Rules. All 22 discovery disputes must be raised within 30 calendar days of the service of an 23 objection, answer, or response that becomes the subject of dispute, or the passage of a 24 discovery due date without response or production, and only after counsel (and any 25 unrepresented parties) have met and conferred to resolve the dispute. See J. Burkhardt Civ. 26

27 1 https://www.casd.uscourts.gov/Judges/burkhardt/docs/Burkhardt%20Model 28 1 Chambers R. § V. A failure to comply in this regard will result in a waiver of a party’s 2 discovery issue. Absent an order of the court, no stipulation continuing or altering 3 this requirement will be recognized by the court. 4 4. The parties shall designate their respective experts in writing by 5 May 15, 2026. The parties must identify any person who may be used at trial to present 6 evidence pursuant to Rules 702, 703 or 705 of the Fed. R. Evid. This requirement is not 7 limited to retained experts. The date for exchange of rebuttal experts shall be by 8 May 29, 2026. The written designations shall include the name, address and telephone 9 number of the expert and a reasonable summary of the testimony the expert is expected to 10 provide. The list shall also include the normal rates the expert charges for deposition and 11 trial testimony. 12 5. By June 26, 2026, each party shall comply with the disclosure provisions in 13 Rule 26(a)(2)(A) and (B) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This disclosure 14 requirement applies to all persons retained or specially employed to provide expert 15 testimony, or whose duties as an employee of the party regularly involve the giving of 16 expert testimony. Except as provided in the paragraph below, any party that fails to 17 make these disclosures shall not, absent substantial justification, be permitted to use 18 evidence or testimony not disclosed at any hearing or at the time of trial. In addition, 19 the Court may impose sanctions as permitted by Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c). 20 6. Any party shall supplement its disclosure regarding contradictory or rebuttal 21 evidence under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(D) by July 10, 2026. 22 7. All expert discovery shall be completed by all parties by August 7, 2026. The 23 parties shall comply with the same procedures set forth in the paragraph governing fact 24 discovery. 25 8. Failure to comply with this section or any other discovery order of the court 26 may result in the sanctions provided for in Fed. R. Civ. P. 37, including a prohibition on 27 the introduction of experts or other designated matters in evidence. 28 /// 1 9. All other pretrial motions must be filed by September 4, 2026. Counsel for 2 the moving party must obtain a motion hearing date from the law clerk of the judge who 3 will hear the motion. The period of time between the date you request a motion date and 4 the hearing date may vary from one district judge to another. Please plan accordingly. 5 Failure to make a timely request for a motion date may result in the motion not being heard. 6 Motions in limine are to be filed as directed in the Civil Local Rules, or as otherwise set 7 by the district judge. 8 10. A Mandatory Settlement Conference (“MSC”) will be held by video 9 conference2 on August 19, 2026 at 1:45 PM before Magistrate Judge Jill L. Burkhardt. 10 Mandatory directions for participating in the MSC by video conference are attached 11 hereto. The purpose of the MSC is to permit an informal, candid discussion between the 12 attorneys, parties, and the settlement judge of every aspect of the lawsuit in an effort to 13 achieve a mediated resolution of the case. All MSC discussions will be off the record, 14 privileged, and confidential. See CivLR 16.3.h. 15 Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 16.3, all party representatives and claims adjusters for 16 insured defendants with full and unlimited authority3 to negotiate and enter into a binding 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).

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)
Hector Mendivil v. Parts Authority, LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hector-mendivil-v-parts-authority-llc-casd-2025.