Leung v. UNUM Life Insurance Company of America

District Court, S.D. California·Decided February 21, 2023·No. 3:22-cv-00767·Unknown

Opinion

RICHARD J. LEUNG, MD, Case No.: 22-cv-00767-W-JLB

Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING JOINT v. MOTION TO CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT DATES

OF AMERICA, [ECF No. 28] Defendant.

Before the Court is a Joint Motion to Continue Case Management Dates. (ECF No. 28.) The parties jointly request to continue all case management dates by approximately 45 days. (Id. at 1–2.) Good cause appearing, the Joint Motion is GRANTED, and the Scheduling Order (ECF No. 9) is modified as follows: 1. All fact discovery shall be completed by all parties by June 5, 2023. “Completed” means that all discovery under Rules 30-36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and discovery subpoenas under Rule 45, must be initiated a sufficient period of time in advance of the cut-off date, so that it may be completed by the cut-off date, taking into account the times for service, notice and response as set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Counsel shall promptly and in good faith meet and confer with regard to all discovery disputes in compliance with Local Rule 26.1(a). The Court expects counsel to make every effort to resolve all disputes without court intervention through the meet and confer process. If the parties reach an impasse on any discovery issue, counsel shall file an appropriate motion within the time limit and procedures outlined in the undersigned magistrate judge’s chambers rules. A failure to comply in this regard will result in a waiver of a party’s discovery issue. Absent an order of the court, no stipulation continuing or altering this requirement will be recognized by the court. Discovery disputes must be brought to the Court’s attention in the time and manner required by § V of Judge Burkhardt’s Civil Chambers Rules. All discovery disputes must be raised within 30 calendar days of the service of an objection, answer, or response that becomes the subject of dispute, or the passage of a discovery due date without response or production, and only after counsel (and any unrepresented parties) have met and conferred to resolve the dispute. See J. Burkhardt Civ. Chambers R. § V. 2. The parties shall designate their respective experts in writing by April 10, 2023. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(A), the parties must identify any person who may be used at trial to present evidence pursuant to Rules 702, 703 or 705 of the Fed. R. Evid. This requirement is not limited to retained experts. The date for exchange of rebuttal experts shall be by May 8, 2023. The written designations shall include the name, address and telephone number of the expert and a reasonable summary of the testimony the expert is expected to provide. The list shall also include the normal rates the expert charges for deposition and trial testimony. 3. By April 10, 2023, each party shall comply with the disclosure provisions in Rule 26(a)(2)(A) and (B) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This disclosure requirement applies to all persons retained or specially employed to provide expert testimony, or whose duties as an employee of the party regularly involve the giving of expert testimony. Except as provided in the paragraph below, any party that fails to make these disclosures shall not, absent substantial justification, be permitted to use evidence or testimony not disclosed at any hearing or at the time of trial. In addition, the Court may impose sanctions as permitted by Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c). 4. Any party shall supplement its disclosure regarding contradictory or rebuttal evidence under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(D) and 26(e) by May 8, 2023. 5. All expert discovery shall be completed by all parties by June 5, 2023. The parties shall comply with the same procedures set forth in the paragraph governing fact discovery. 6. Failure to comply with the above paragraphs or any other discovery order of the court may result in the sanctions provided for in Fed. R. Civ. P. 37, including a prohibition on the introduction of experts or other designated matters in evidence. 7. All other pretrial motions must be filed by July 3, 2023. Counsel for the moving party must obtain a motion hearing date from the law clerk of the judge who will hear the motion. The period of time between the date you request a motion date and the hearing date may vary from one district judge to another. Please plan accordingly. Failure to make a timely request for a motion date may result in the motion not being heard. Motions in limine are to be filed as directed in the Local Rules, or as otherwise set by the district judge. 8. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(f)(3)(c), if an opposing party fails to file opposition papers in the time and manner required by Civil Local Rule 7.1(e)(2), that failure may constitute a consent to the granting of a motion or other request for ruling by the court. Accordingly, all parties are ordered to abide by the terms of Local Rule 7.1(e)(2) or otherwise face the prospect of any pretrial motion being granted as an unopposed motion pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(f)(3)(c). Should either party choose to file or oppose a motion for summary judgment or partial summary judgment, no Separate Statement of Disputed or Undisputed Facts is required. 9. A Mandatory Settlement Conference (“MSC”) will be held by video conference1 on July 17, 2023 at 1:45 PM before Magistrate Judge Jill L. Burkhardt.

1 If any party believes the MSC is more likely to be successful if conducted in-person, Mandatory directions for participating in the MSC by video conference are attached hereto. The purpose of the MSC is to permit an informal, candid discussion between the attorneys, parties, and the settlement judge of every aspect of the lawsuit in an effort to achieve a mediated resolution of the case. All MSC discussions will be off the record, privileged, and confidential. See CivLR 16.3(h). No later than July 7, 2023, counsel (and any unrepresented parties) shall lodge confidential MSC statements with Judge Burkhardt’s chambers via e-mail at efile_Burkhardt@casd.uscourts.gov. The parties’ MSC statements shall comply with § III.C. of Judge Burkhardt’s Civil Chambers Rules. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 16.3, all party representatives and claims adjusters for insured defendants with full and unlimited authority2 to negotiate and enter into a binding settlement, as well as the principal attorney(s) responsible for the litigation, must be present and legally and factually prepared to discuss and resolve the case at the MSC. In the case of an entity, an authorized representative of the entity who is not retained outside counsel must be present and must have discretionary authority to commit the entity to pay an amount up to the amount of the Plaintiff’s prayer (excluding punitive damages prayers). The purpose of this requirement is to have representatives present who can settle the case during the course of the conference without consulting a superior.

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

Leung v. UNUM Life Insurance Company of America, (S.D. Cal. 2023).

Leung v. UNUM Life Insurance Company of America (Leung v. UNUM Life Insurance Company of America) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

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