Pipich v. O'Reilly Auto Enterprises, LLC

District Court, S.D. California·Decided March 27, 2023·No. 3:21-cv-01120·Unknown

Opinion

JEFFREY PIPICH, individually and on Case No.: 21-cv-01120-L-JLB behalf of all others similarly situated, ORDER GRANTING JOINT Plaintiff, v. SCHEDULING ORDER

O’REILLY AUTO ENTERPRISES, [ECF No. 41] LLC, Defendant.

Before the Court is the parties’ Joint Motion to Amend the Scheduling Order. (ECF No. 41.) Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. The Parties must review and familiarize themselves with the Civil Local Rules of this District (“Local Rules”), the Electronic Case Filing Administrative Policies and Procedures (“CM/ECF Manual”), the Standing Order for Civil Cases issued by the Hon. M. James Lorenz (“Standing Order”), and the undersigned Magistrate Judge’s Chambers Rules (“Chambers Rules”), all of which are posted on this District’s website. /// Pleadings 2. Any motion to join other parties, to amend the pleadings, or to file additional pleadings shall be filed no later than May 15, 2023. Discovery 3. All discovery shall be completed by all Parties no later than October 17, 2023. “Completed” means that all discovery under Rules 30-36, and discovery subpoenas under Rule 45,1 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. Counsel shall promptly and in good faith meet and confer with regard to all discovery disputes in compliance with Local Rule 26.1(a). Counsel shall make every effort to resolve all disputes without court intervention through the meet and confer process. 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. A failure to comply in this regard will result in waiver. Absent an order of the court, no stipulation to alter or extend the time to comply with this provision will be recognized by the court. 4. No later than August 22, 2023, the Parties shall designate in writing their respective experts related to the merits of the case. The Parties must identify any person who may be used at trial to present evidence pursuant to Rules 702, 703 or 705 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. This requirement is not limited to retained experts. The written designations shall include the name, address and telephone number of each 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. 5. The Parties shall exchange their respective rebuttal experts related to the merits of the case by September 19, 2023. 6. Each party shall comply with Rule 26(a)(2)(A) and (B) disclosure provisions related to their merits experts by August 22, 2023. This disclosure requirement applies to all persons retained or specially employed to provide expert testimony, or whose duties as a party’s employee regularly involve giving 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 the undisclosed evidence or testimony at any hearing or at trial. In addition, the court may impose sanctions as permitted by Rule 37(c). 7. No later than September 19, 2023, the Parties shall supplement their disclosures regarding contradictory or rebuttal evidence under Rule 26(a)(2)(D) related to their merits experts. 8. Failure to comply with this section or any other discovery order of the court may result in Rule 37 sanctions, including preclusion of expert or other designated evidence. Motion Briefing 9. Except for motions in limine, all pretrial motions must be filed no later than November 14, 2023. As provided herein and in the Standing Order, certain motions must be filed well before this date. 10. 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 of requesting a motion date and the hearing date typically exceeds 30 days. Failure to make a timely request for a motion date may result in the motion not being heard. 11. Motion briefing must comply with all applicable Rules, Local Rules, Standing Order, Chambers Rules and court orders. /// Mandatory Settlement Conference 12. A Mandatory Settlement Conference (“MSC”) will be held by video conference2 on November 1, 2023 at 1:45 PM before Magistrate Judge Jill L. Burkhardt. 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). Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 16.3, all party representatives and claims adjusters for insured defendants with full and unlimited authority3 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).

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

Pipich v. O'Reilly Auto Enterprises, LLC, (S.D. Cal. 2023).

Pipich v. O'Reilly Auto Enterprises, LLC (Pipich v. O'Reilly Auto Enterprises, LLC) — 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)