Medina v. Walmart Inc.

District Court, E.D. California·Decided September 13, 2023·No. 1:23-cv-00887·Unknown

Opinion

JENNIFER MEDINA, Case No. 1:23-cv-00887-JLT-CDB Plaintiff, SCHEDULING ORDER (Fed. R. Civ. P. 16)

v. Rule 26 Disclosures: September 26, 2023 Pleading Amendment: October 12, 2023 WALMART, INC. et al., Discovery Deadlines: Non-Expert: June 11, 2024 Defendants. Expert: August 15, 2024 Mid-Discovery Status Conf.: April 30, 2024 Non-Dispositive Motion Deadlines: Filing: August 29, 2024 Hearing: October 5, 2024, 10:30 a.m.

Dispositive Motion Deadlines: Filing: October 24, 2024 Hearing: December 10, 2024, 8:30 a.m.

Pre-Trial Conference: February 3, 2025, 1:30 p.m. 2500 Tulare Street, Fresno, CA Trial: April 1, 2025, 8:30 a.m. 2500 Tulare Street, Fresno, CA 5-7 days This action was removed from state court to this Court on June 9, 2023. (Doc. 1). Plaintiff Jennifer Medina (“Plaintiff”), a former employee of Defendants Walmart Inc. and Wal-mart Associates, Inc., asserts causes of action against Defendants for wrongful termination and related violations under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act. The parties convened before the Court via Zoom videoconference for a scheduling conference on September 13, 2023. Lawrence Freiman appeared on behalf of Plaintiff and Devon Mills appeared on behalf of Defendants. I. Fictitiously-Named Defendants All claims as to “Doe” Defendants, including any counterclaims and cross-claims, are hereby Dismissed. II. Rule 26 Disclosures and Pleading Amendment The parties are required to exchange their Rule 26 disclosures by September 26, 2023. Any motions to amend the pleadings must be filed by October 12, 2023. The parties are advised that filing a motion and/or stipulation requesting leave to amend the pleadings does not reflect on the propriety of the amendment or imply good cause to modify the existing schedule, if necessary. All proposed amendments must (A) be supported by good cause pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b) if the amendment requires any modification to the existing schedule, see Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992), and (B) establish, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a), that such an amendment is not (1) prejudicial to the opposing party, (2) the product of undue delay, (3) proposed in bad faith, or (4) futile, see Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). III. Discovery Plan and Cut-Off Date The parties are ordered to complete all discovery pertaining to non-experts on or before June 11, 2024,1 and all discovery pertaining to experts on or before August 15, 2024. The parties are directed to disclose all expert witnesses, in writing, on or before June 25, 2024, and to disclose all rebuttal experts on or before July 16, 2024. The written designation of retained and non-retained experts shall be made pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 26(a)(2), (A), (B), and (C) and shall include all information required thereunder. Failure to designate experts in compliance with this

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

Medina v. Walmart Inc., (E.D. Cal. 2023).

Medina v. Walmart Inc. (Medina v. Walmart Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Foman v. Davis
371 U.S. 178 (Supreme Court, 1962)
Charles Zimmerman Sons Co. v. Ferguson
16 F.2d 604 (E.D. Michigan, 1926)