Hergenroeder v. Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. California
DecidedJune 27, 2023
Docket1:23-cv-00420
StatusUnknown

This text of Hergenroeder v. Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company (Hergenroeder v. Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hergenroeder v. Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company, (E.D. Cal. 2023).

Opinion

1 2 3 SCHEDULING ORDER 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 LYNNDA HERGENROEDER, CASE NO. 1:23-cv-00420-JLT-EPG

8 SCHEDULING CONFERENCE ORDER

9 Administrative Record Plaintiff, Filing Deadline: August 25, 2023 10

Motion to Compel: October 6, 2023 11 v. Nonexpert 12 Discovery Cutoff: February 16, 2024

HARTFORD LIFE AND ACCIDENT Settlement Conf.: Date: Not Set 14 INSURANCE COMPANY,

Mid-Discovery Conf: Date: December 4, 2023 15 Time: 11:00 a.m.

Dept:10 16

Defendant. Trial Briefing Schedule: 17 Simultaneous Opening Briefs: April 26, 18 2024 Simultaneous Responding Briefs: May 19 24, 2024 20 Proposed Findings of Fact: June 21, 2024 21 Bench Trial (1-2 hour estimate): Date: Not Set 22 23 24 25

26 27 28 1 This Court conducted a scheduling conference on June 22, 2023. Counsel Robert Rosati 2 and Raquel Busani appeared telephonically on behalf of Plaintiff. Counsel Jenny Wang appeared 3 telephonically on behalf of Defendant. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b), this Court sets a 4 schedule for this action. I. Amendment To The Parties’ Pleadings 5 The parties are advised that the filing of motions and/or stipulations requesting leave to 6 amend the pleadings does not imply good cause to modify the existing schedule. Fed. R. Civ. P. 7 16(b)(4); see also Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F. 2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). 8 Moreover, any request for amendment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) must not be: (1) prejudicial to 9 the opposing party; (2) the product of undue delay; (3) proposed in bad faith; or (4) futile. See 10 Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). 11 II. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) 12 Defendant has made its initial disclosures and produced the administrative record. 13 Additionally, Defendant shall file the written administrative record by no later than August 25, 14 2023. See Local Rule 261; Local Rule 138(b). 15 III. Discovery Cutoffs And Limits 16 All non-expert discovery shall be completed no later than February 16, 2024. The parties 17 agree that expert discovery is not necessary. 18 The parties have a dispute regarding the scope of discovery allowed in this action as 19 governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). As discussed at the 20 scheduling conference, the parties have permission to file discovery motions regarding this 21 dispute. Accordingly, the Court sets a deadline to file such a motion by no later than October 6, 22 2023. The motion to compel need not comply with Local Rule 251 regarding discovery motions. 23 The motion shall be noticed and briefed pursuant to Local Rule 230. A Mid-Discovery Status Conference is set for December 4, 2023, at 11:00 a.m in 24 Courtroom 10, before Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean. At least seven (7) days before the 25 conference, the parties are directed to file a joint report, of up to five (5) pages, outlining the 26 status of the case, any additional discovery still planned, potential for settlement, and any other 27 issues pending that would benefit from the Court's assistance/direction. The parties are permitted 28 1 to appear telephonically and may do so by dialing 1-888-251-2909 and entering access code 2 1024453. Alternatively, parties and counsel may appear in person. If one or more parties wish to 3 appear in person, they shall email Michelle Rooney, Courtroom Deputy Clerk, at 4 mrooney@caed.uscourts.gov at least 24 hours before the conference so that a notation can be placed on the Court’s calendar. 5 IV. Pretrial Motion Schedule 6 A. General Information Regarding Filing Motions 7 The parties are advised that unless prior leave of the Court is obtained before the filing 8 deadline,1 all moving and opposition briefs or legal memoranda, including joint statements of 9 discovery disputes, filed in civil cases before Magistrate Judge Grosjean, shall not exceed twenty- 10 five (25) pages. Reply briefs by the moving party shall not exceed ten (10) pages. These page 11 limits do not include exhibits. When scheduling motions (other than discovery motions) the 12 parties shall comply with Local Rule 230. 13 Counsel or pro se parties may appear and argue motions by telephone, provided a request 14 to so do is made to Michelle Rooney, Magistrate Judge Grosjean’s Courtroom Deputy (unless 15 prior permission has been given by the judge), no later than five (5) court days before the noticed 16 hearing date. Requests can be made by emailing Ms. Rooney at mrooney@caed.uscourts.gov. If 17 the parties are appearing telephonically, each party shall dial 1-888- 251-2909 and enter access 18 code 1024453. 19 1. Informal Discovery Conference 20 In order to file a motion involving a discovery dispute, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 through 37 21 and 45,2 a party must receive permission from the Court following an informal telephonic 22 discovery dispute conference. However, non-parties challenging a subpoena under Fed. R. Civ. 23 P. 45 are not required to request an informal conference before filing a motion. A party wishing to schedule such a conference should contact chambers to receive available dates. The Court will 24 25

1 Parties may seek leave through a telephonic conference among all parties and the Court, or by short motion. 26 2 The Court construes “discovery dispute” broadly, which includes, but is not limited to, disputes regarding written discovery, oral depositions, physical and mental examinations, and protective orders. As discussed above, the parties 27 have permission to file discovery motions regarding the scope of discovery in this action. However, the Court will still require an Informal Discovery Conference in the event the parties have a dispute regarding additional discovery 28 matters. 1 schedule the conference as soon as possible, taking into consideration the urgency of the issue. 2 Prior to the conference, the parties shall simultaneously file an Informal Discovery 3 Dispute Letter Brief, outlining their positions regarding the dispute. Such briefs shall be no 4 longer than three pages single-spaced, and may include up to five pages of exhibits. The Court will provide the date and time the Letter Briefs are due at the time the conference is scheduled. 5 At the time of conference, the parties shall dial 1-888-251-2909 and enter access code 6 1024453. The Court will not issue a formal ruling at that time. Nevertheless, the Court will 7 attempt to provide guidance to the parties to narrow or dispose of the dispute. If no resolution can 8 be reached without formal motion practice, the Court will authorize the filing of a formal 9 discovery motion. 10 2. Filing a Discovery Motion 11 If a discovery motion, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 through 37 and 45, is brought after receiving 12 permission from the Court, the parties must prepare and file a Joint Statement re: Discovery 13 Disagreement (“Joint Statement”) as required by Local Rule 251.3 In scheduling such motions, 14 Magistrate Judge Grosjean may grant applications for an order shortening time pursuant to Local 15 Rule 144(e). If a party does not obtain an order shortening time, the notice of motion must 16 comply with Local Rule 251.

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

Related

Foman v. Davis
371 U.S. 178 (Supreme Court, 1962)
Golden Gate Mill & Mining Co. v. Joshua Hendy Machine Works
23 P. 45 (California Supreme Court, 1889)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Hergenroeder v. Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hergenroeder-v-hartford-life-and-accident-insurance-company-caed-2023.