Ludlow v. Flowers Foods, Inc.

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. California
DecidedJanuary 10, 2023
Docket3:18-cv-01190-JO-JLB
StatusUnknown

This text of Ludlow v. Flowers Foods, Inc. (Ludlow v. Flowers Foods, Inc.) 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
Ludlow v. Flowers Foods, Inc., (S.D. Cal. 2023).

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 13 DANIEL LUDLOW, individually and on Case No.: 18-cv-01190-JO-JLB behalf of others similarly-situated, 14 ORDER GRANTING IN PART THE Plaintiff, 15 PARTIES’ JOINT MOTION TO v. AMEND SCHEDULING ORDER 16

FLOWER FOODS, INC. et al., 17 [ECF Nos. 332, 348] Defendants. 18 19 20 Before the Court is the parties’ Joint Motion to Amend the Scheduling Order. (ECF 21 No. 348.) The Court finds good cause to grant an extension of all remaining dates by four 22 months.1 Accordingly, the parties’ joint motion (ECF No. 348) is GRANTED in part, 23 and the operative Scheduling Order (ECF No. 332) is amended as follows: 24 1. Any motion to join other parties, to amend the pleadings, or to file additional 25

26 27 1 In light of the age of the case, the parties should not expect further extensions to be granted. Therefore, the parties are urged to apply all due diligence to meeting the 28 1 pleadings shall be filed by May 12, 2023. 2 2. All fact discovery shall be completed by all parties by July 14, 2023. 3 “Completed” means that all discovery under Rules 30–36 of the Federal Rules of Civil 4 Procedure, and discovery subpoenas under Rule 45, must be initiated a sufficient period of 5 time in advance of the cut-off date, so that it may be completed by the cut-off date, taking 6 into account the times for service, notice and response as set forth in the Federal Rules of 7 Civil Procedure. Counsel shall promptly and in good faith meet and confer with 8 regard to all discovery disputes in compliance with Local Rule 26.1(a). The Court 9 expects counsel to make every effort to resolve all disputes without court intervention 10 through the meet and confer process. Discovery disputes must be brought to the Court’s 11 attention in the time and manner required by § V of Judge Burkhardt’s Civil Chambers 12 Rules. All discovery disputes must be raised within 30 calendar days of the service of 13 an objection, answer, or response that becomes the subject of dispute, or the passage of 14 a discovery due date without response or production, and only after counsel (and any 15 unrepresented parties) have met and conferred to resolve the dispute. See J. Burkhardt Civ. 16 Chambers R. § V. A failure to comply in this regard will result in a waiver of a party’s 17 discovery issue. Absent an order of the court, no stipulation continuing or altering 18 this requirement will be recognized by the court. 19 3. The parties shall designate their respective experts in writing by 20 May 12, 2023. The parties must identify any person who may be used at trial to present 21 evidence pursuant to Rules 702, 703 or 705 of the Fed. R. Evid. This requirement is not 22 limited to retained experts. The date for exchange of rebuttal experts shall be by 23 June 12, 2023. The written designations shall include the name, address and telephone 24 number of the expert and a reasonable summary of the testimony the expert is expected to 25 provide. The list shall also include the normal rates the expert charges for deposition and 26 trial testimony. 27 4. By May 12, 2023, each party shall comply with the disclosure provisions in 28 Rule 26(a)(2)(A) and (B) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This disclosure 1 requirement applies to all persons retained or specially employed to provide expert 2 testimony, or whose duties as an employee of the party regularly involve the giving of 3 expert testimony. Except as provided in the paragraph below, any party that fails to 4 make these disclosures shall not, absent substantial justification, be permitted to use 5 evidence or testimony not disclosed at any hearing or at the time of trial. In addition, 6 the Court may impose sanctions as permitted by Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c). 7 5. Any party shall supplement its disclosure regarding contradictory or rebuttal 8 evidence under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(D) by June 12, 2023. 9 6. All expert discovery shall be completed by all parties by July 14, 2023. The 10 parties shall comply with the same procedures set forth in the paragraph governing fact 11 discovery. 12 7. Failure to comply with this section or any other discovery order of the court 13 may result in the sanctions provided for in Fed. R. Civ. P. 37, including a prohibition on 14 the introduction of experts or other designated matters in evidence. 15 8. All other pretrial motions must be filed by August 18, 2023. Counsel for the 16 moving party must obtain a motion hearing date from the law clerk of the judge who will 17 hear the motion. The period of time between the date you request a motion date and the 18 hearing date may vary from one district judge to another. Please plan accordingly. Failure 19 to make a timely request for a motion date may result in the motion not being heard. 20 Motions in limine are to be filed as directed in the Local Rules, or as otherwise set by the 21 district judge. 22 9. A Mandatory Settlement Conference (“MSC”) will be held by video 23 conference2 on August 22, 2023 at 1:45 PM before Magistrate Judge Jill L. Burkhardt. 24 25 2 If any party believes the MSC is more likely to be successful if conducted in-person, 26 that party shall meet and confer on the issue with the other parties. After meeting and 27 conferring, and no later than 60 days before the MSC, the parties shall leave a joint voicemail with chambers at (619) 557-6624 indicating which of the parties requests an in- 28 1 Mandatory directions for participating in the MSC by video conference are attached 2 hereto. The purpose of the MSC is to permit an informal, candid discussion between the 3 attorneys, parties, and the settlement judge of every aspect of the lawsuit in an effort to 4 achieve a mediated resolution of the case. All MSC discussions will be off the record, 5 privileged, and confidential. See CivLR 16.3(h). 6 Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 16.3, all party representatives and claims adjusters for 7 insured defendants with full and unlimited authority3 to negotiate and enter into a binding 8 settlement, as well as the principal attorney(s) responsible for the litigation, must be present 9 and legally and factually prepared to discuss and resolve the case at the MSC. In the case 10 of an entity, an authorized representative of the entity who is not retained outside counsel 11 must be present and must have discretionary authority to commit the entity to pay an 12 amount up to the amount of the Plaintiff’s prayer (excluding punitive damages prayers). 13 The purpose of this requirement is to have representatives present who can settle the case 14 during the course of the conference without consulting a superior. 15 Counsel for a United States government entity may be excused from this 16 requirement so long as the government attorney who attends the MSC conference (1) has 17 primary responsibility for handling the case, and (2) may negotiate settlement offers which 18 the attorney is willing to recommend to the government official having ultimate settlement 19 authority. 20 21 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

McQuaid v. Portland & Vancouver R. R. Co.
25 P. 26 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1890)
Pitman v. Brinker International, Inc.
216 F.R.D. 481 (D. Arizona, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Ludlow v. Flowers Foods, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ludlow-v-flowers-foods-inc-casd-2023.