Mercado v. County of Merced

District Court, E.D. California·Decided November 12, 2020·No. 1:20-cv-00161·Unknown

Opinion

Case No. 1: 20-cv-00161-NONE SAB

DESIREE MERCADO, SCHEDULING ORDER (Fed. R. Civ. P. 16)

Plaintiff, Discovery Deadlines: Initial Disclosures: December 3, 2020 Non-Expert Discovery: April 2, 2021 Expert Disclosure: May 7, 2021 Supplemental Expert Disclosure: May 28, 2021 Expert Discovery: June 25, 2021 v. Dispositive Motion Deadlines: Filing: July 30, 2021

Hearing: Pursuant to Local Rules

Pre-Trial Conference: COUNTY OF MERCED, ET. AL., December 10, 2021 at 10:00 am Courtroom 5 Defendants.

Trial: No Trial Set

I. Date of Scheduling Conference The Scheduling Conference was held on November 12, 2020. II. Appearances of Counsel No appearance made on behalf of Plaintiff. Janine Highiet-Ivicevic appeared by video conference on behalf of the County of Merced, Merced County Sheriff’s Office, and Vernon H. Warnke, and Alison Berry Wilkinson appeared on behalf of Damian Sparks via videoconference.1

1 Plaintiff has not submitted a proof of service for Defendants Sparks, Royel, Perez, and Wali. Defendant Sparks has III. Consent to Magistrate Judge Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), to the parties who have not consented to conduct all further proceedings in this case, including trial, before United States Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone, you should be informed that because of the pressing workload of United States district judges and the priority of criminal cases under the United States Constitution, you may consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction in an effort to have your case adjudicated in a timely and cost effective manner. The parties are advised that they are free to withhold consent or decline magistrate jurisdiction without adverse substantive consequences. IV. Initial Disclosure under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) The Parties are ordered to exchange the initial disclosures required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) on or before December 3, 2020. V. Amendments to Pleading The parties do not anticipate any amendments to the pleadings at this time. The parties are advised that filing motions and/or stipulations 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). VI. Discovery Plan and Cut-Off Dates The parties are ordered to complete all non-expert discovery on or before April 2, 2021 and all expert discovery on or before June 25, 2021.

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

Mercado v. County of Merced, (E.D. Cal. 2020).

Mercado v. County of Merced (Mercado v. County of Merced) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Foman v. Davis
371 U.S. 178 (Supreme Court, 1962)