Moran v. Altec Industries

District Court, E.D. California·Decided November 14, 2023·No. 1:23-cv-01236·Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 OMAR MORAN, et al. Case No. 1:23-cv-01236-ADA-CDB 12 Plaintiffs, SCHEDULING ORDER (Fed. R. Civ. P. 16)

13 v. Discovery Deadlines: 14 ALTEC INDUSTRIES. - Amend Pleadings: March 25, 2024 - Expert Disclosures: June 10, 2024 15 Defendant. - Rebuttal Expert Disclosures: July 1, 2024 - Fact Discovery: May 27, 2024 16 - Expert Discovery: August 1, 2024 - Mid-Discovery Status Conference: April 22, 17 2024, at 10:00 a.m., in Bakersfield Federal Courthouse 510 19th Street, Bakersfield, CA 93301 18 Non-Dispositive Motion Deadlines: 19 - Filing: August 15, 2024 - Hearing: On or before September 23, 2024, at 20 10:30 a.m., in Bakersfield Federal Courthouse

21 Dispositive Motion Deadlines: - Filing: October 7, 2024 22 - Hearing: On or before November 18, 2024, at 1:30 p.m, in Robert E. Coyle Federal Courthouse, 23 Fresno, Courtroom 1, 8th Floor

24 Pre-Trial Conference: April 28, 2025, at 1:30 p.m., in Fresno Federal Courthouse 25 Trial: June 24, 2025, at 8:30 a.m, in Fresno 26 Federal Courthouse 27 28 1 On or about July 11, 2023, Plaintiffs Omar and Sandy Moran filed complaint in the Superior 2 Court of the State of California, County of Kern. (Doc. 1). On August 18, 2023, Defendant Altec 3 Industries removed the action to this Court. Id. In their complaint, Plaintiffs raise the following claims 4 against Defendant: (1) products liability, (2) negligence, and (3) loss of consortium. (Doc. 1-1). 5 I. Date of Scheduling Conference 6 November 13, 2023, before Magistrate Judge Christopher D. Baker, via Zoom 7 videoconference. 8 II. Appearances of Counsel 9 Steven W. Martin appeared on behalf of Plaintiffs Omar and Sandy Moran. 10 Jeffrey R. Williams appeared on behalf of Altec Industries. 11 III. Magistrate Judge Consent: 12 The parties do not consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction. 13 Notice of Congested Docket and Court Policy of Trailing 14 Due to the District Judges’ heavy caseload, the adopted policy of the Fresno Division of the 15 Eastern District is to trail all civil cases. The parties are hereby notified that for a trial date set before a 16 District Judge, the parties will trail indefinitely behind any higher priority criminal or older civil case 17 set on the same date until a courtroom becomes available. 18 The Magistrate Judges’ availability is far more realistic and accommodating to parties than that 19 of the District Judges who carry the heaviest caseloads in the nation and who must prioritize criminal 20 and older civil cases over more recently filed civil cases. A Magistrate Judge may conduct trials, 21 including entry of final judgment, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 73, 22 and Local Rule 305. Any appeal from a judgment entered by a Magistrate Judge is taken directly to the 23 United States Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit. 24 Therefore, the parties are directed to consider consenting to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction to 25 conduct all further proceedings, including trial, and to file a consent/decline form (provided by the 26 Court at the inception of this case) indicating whether they will consent to the jurisdiction of the 27 Magistrate Judge. 28 / / / 1 IV. Pleading Amendment 2 Any motions to amend the pleadings, including to substitute any Doe Defendant(s), must be 3 filed by March 25, 2024. The parties are advised that filing a motion and/or stipulation requesting 4 leave to amend the pleadings does not reflect on the propriety of the amendment or imply good cause to 5 modify the existing schedule, if necessary. All proposed amendments must (A) be supported by good 6 cause pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b) if the amendment requires any modification to the existing 7 schedule, see Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992), and (B) 8 establish, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a), that such an amendment is not (1) prejudicial to the opposing 9 party, (2) the product of undue delay, (3) proposed in bad faith, or (4) futile, see Foman v. Davis, 371 10 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). 11 V. Discovery Plan and Cut-Off Date 12 The parties are ordered to complete all discovery pertaining to non-experts by May 27, 2024, 13 and all discovery pertaining to experts by August 1, 2024. 14 The parties are directed to disclose all expert witnesses1, in writing, by June 10, 2024, and to 15 disclose all rebuttal experts by July 1, 2024. The written designation of retained and non-retained 16 experts shall be made pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 26(a)(2), (A), (B), and (C) and shall include all 17 information required thereunder. Failure to designate experts in compliance with this order may result 18 in the Court excluding the testimony or other evidence offered through such experts that are not 19 disclosed pursuant to this order. 20 The provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4) and (5) shall apply to all discovery relating to experts 21 and their opinions. Experts must be fully prepared to be examined on all subjects and opinions 22 included in the designation. Failure to comply will result in the imposition of sanctions, which may 23 include striking the expert designation and preclusion of expert testimony. 24 The provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e) regarding a party’s duty to timely supplement 25 disclosures and responses to discovery requests will be strictly enforced. 26 27 28 1 In the event an expert will offer opinions related to an independent medical or mental health evaluation, the examination SHALL occur sufficiently in advance of the disclosure deadline so the 1 A mid-discovery status conference is scheduled for April 22, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. before 2 Magistrate Judge Christopher D. Baker. Counsel SHALL file a joint mid-discovery status conference 3 report no later than one week before the conference. Counsel also SHALL lodge the joint status report 4 via e-mail to CDBorders@caed.uscourts.gov. The joint status report SHALL outline the discovery 5 counsel have completed and that which needs to be completed as well as any impediments to 6 completing the discovery within the deadlines set forth in this order. Counsel SHALL discuss 7 settlement and certify in the joint status report (1) that they have met/conferred regarding settlement, 8 and (2) proposed dates for convening a settlement conference before a U.S. magistrate judge. 9 VI. Pre-Trial Motion Schedule / Informal Discovery Dispute Conferences 10 All non-dispositive pre-trial motions, including any discovery motions, shall be filed by August 11 15, 20242 and heard on or before September 23, 2024. Discovery motions shall be set before 12 Magistrate Judge Baker. For these hearings and at the direction of the Courtroom Deputy Clerk, the 13 Court may direct counsel to appear remotely (via Zoom). For hearings noticed to occur in-person, the 14 Court may permit counsel to appear remotely (via Zoom) provided the Courtroom Deputy Clerk 15 receives a written notice of the request to appear remotely no later than five court days before the 16 noticed hearing date.

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

Moran v. Altec Industries, (E.D. Cal. 2023).

Moran v. Altec Industries (Moran v. Altec Industries) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related