Jessica Lewis v. Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc.

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. California
DecidedDecember 19, 2025
Docket2:24-cv-01108
StatusUnknown

This text of Jessica Lewis v. Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc. (Jessica Lewis v. Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc.) 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
Jessica Lewis v. Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc., (E.D. Cal. 2025).

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JESSICA LEWIS, No. 2:24-cv-1108-DC-DMC 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. SCHEDULING ORDER 14 ULTA SALON, COSMETICS & FRAGRANCE, INC., 15 Defendant. 16

17 18 Plaintiff, who is proceeding with retained counsel, brings this civil action. On referral 19 from the District Judge, see ECF No. 6, the undersigned conducted a scheduling conference on 20 November 19, 2025. Attorney Nathan Searcy appeared on behalf of Plaintiff. Attorney Anthony 21 DeCristoforo appeared on behalf of Defendant. Pursuant to Rule 16(b) of the Federal Rules of 22 Civil Procedure, the court issues this scheduling order. 23 / / / 24 / / / 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 I. SERVICE OF PROCESS 2 The named defendant has been properly served in state court and removed this action on 3 April 12, 2024. See ECF No. 1. No further service is permitted without leave of court, good 4 cause having been shown under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b). 5 II. JOINDER OF ADDITIONAL PARTIES / AMENDMENT OF PLEADINGS 6 The parties do not anticipate the joinder of additional parties or amendment of the 7 pleadings. Accordingly, no further joinder of parties or amendments to pleadings is permitted 8 without leave of court, good cause having been shown. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b); Johnson v. 9 Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 27 604 (9th Cir. 1992). The parties are advised that the 10 filing of motions and/or stipulations requesting leave to amend the pleadings does not imply good 11 cause to modify the existing schedule. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 (b)(4); see also Johnson, 975 F. 2d at 12 609. Moreover, any amendment requested under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) must not 13 be: (1) prejudicial to the opposing party; (2) the product of undue delay; (3) proposed in bad faith; 14 or (4) futile. See Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). 15 III. DISCOVERY PROCEDURES 16 Discovery matters that do not implicate the schedule of the case are referred to the 17 assigned Magistrate Judge, Hon. Dennis M. Cota, who will hear all discovery disputes subject to 18 his procedure, which involves a three-step process: (1) first, the parties must meet and confer in 19 good faith in an attempt to resolve the dispute; (2) second, if this efforts is not successful, the 20 parties must contact Judge Cota’s Courtroom Deputy Clerk, Jodi Palmer, to request an informal 21 discovery conference before Judge Cota; (3) third, if the dispute is still unresolved following an 22 informal conference, the parties may file a formal motion. 23 All discovery related filings must include the words “DISCOVERY MATTER” in the 24 caption to ensure proper routing. Do not direct delivery of courtesy copies of these documents to 25 the District Judge. Counsel are directed to contact the Magistrate Judge’s Courtroom Deputy 26 Clerk to schedule discovery matters for hearing. 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 All motions to compel discovery must be noticed on the assigned Magistrate Judge’s 2 calendar in accordance with the local rules of this court and the magistrate judge’s own 3 procedures. The written ruling of the assigned Magistrate Judge shall be final, subject to 4 modification by the District Court only where it has been shown that the Magistrate Judge’s order 5 is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). Pursuant to Local Rule 303, 6 any party may file and serve a “Request for Reconsideration by the District Court of Magistrate 7 Judge’s Ruling.” See L.R. 303(c). The requesting party must file and serve any such request 8 within fourteen (14) days of service of a written ruling. L.R. 303(b). The request must specify 9 which portions of the ruling are clearly erroneous or contrary to law and the basis for that 10 contention with supporting points and authorities. L.R. 303(c). 11 In addition, the assigned Magistrate Judge reviews proposed discovery phase protective 12 orders sought by the parties pursuant to Local Rule 141.1. However, any requests to seal or redact 13 in connection with trial or motions to be resolved by Judge Coggins must be directed to Judge 14 Coggins and comply with her Standing Order and Local Rules 140 and 141. 15 IV. DISCOVERY DEADLINES 16 A. Rule 26(a) Initial Disclosures 17 At the scheduling conference, the parties were directed to serve their initial disclosures 18 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 26(a)(1) on or before December 18, 2025. If 19 they have not already done so, initial disclosures shall be served no later than 14 days after the 20 date of entry of this scheduling order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(C). 21 Any parties served or joined after the issuance of this scheduling order shall “make the 22 initial disclosures within 30 days after being served or joined,” as provided by Rule 26(a)(1)(D). 23 / / / 24 / / / 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 B. Fact Discovery 2 All fact discovery shall be completed1 no later than December 18, 2026. The parties agree 3 to statutory limits on discovery, except Plaintiff proposes serving up to 100 interrogatories. 4 Defendant opposes. The undersigned finds that, at present, good cause has not been shown to 5 depart from statutory limits. This finding is without prejudice to Plaintiff seeking further relief at 6 a later date should such relief be necessary. 7 C. Expert Discovery 8 Disclosures of expert witnesses, if any, must be made pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 9 Procedure 26(a)(2)(A), (B) and (C), and shall include all information required thereunder. Each 10 expert witness must be fully prepared to be examined on all subjects and opinions included in the 11 disclosures. Failure to comply with these requirements may result in the imposition of appropriate 12 sanctions, including the preclusion of the expert’s testimony, or of other evidence offered through 13 the expert. 14 The parties shall disclose initial experts and produce reports in accordance with Federal 15 Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) by no later than January 8, 2027. With regard to expert 16 testimony intended solely for rebuttal, those experts shall be disclosed and reports produced in 17 accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) on or before January 22, 2027 18 All expert discovery shall be completed no later than March 12, 2027 19 V. MOTIONS 20 All motions, except motions for continuances, temporary restraining orders, or other 21 emergency applications, shall be filed on or before April 9, 2027, and shall be noticed for hearing 22 before Judge Coggins on a date not more than 60 days from the date the motion is filed and on a 23 date that is listed on Judge Coggins’s website as an available civil law and motion hearing date. 24 Counsel are directed to refer to the local rules regarding the requirements for noticing and 25

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)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Jessica Lewis v. Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jessica-lewis-v-ulta-salon-cosmetics-fragrance-inc-caed-2025.