Pipich v. O'Reilly Auto Enterprises, LLC

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. California
DecidedMarch 27, 2023
Docket3:21-cv-01120
StatusUnknown

This text of Pipich v. O'Reilly Auto Enterprises, LLC (Pipich v. O'Reilly Auto Enterprises, LLC) 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
Pipich v. O'Reilly Auto Enterprises, LLC, (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 JEFFREY PIPICH, individually and on Case No.: 21-cv-01120-L-JLB behalf of all others similarly situated, 14 ORDER GRANTING JOINT Plaintiff, 15 MOTION TO AMEND v. SCHEDULING ORDER 16

O’REILLY AUTO ENTERPRISES, 17 [ECF No. 41] LLC, 18 Defendant. 19

21 Before the Court is the parties’ Joint Motion to Amend the Scheduling Order. (ECF 22 No. 41.) Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 23 1. The Parties must review and familiarize themselves with the Civil Local Rules 24 of this District (“Local Rules”), the Electronic Case Filing Administrative Policies and 25 Procedures (“CM/ECF Manual”), the Standing Order for Civil Cases issued by the Hon. 26 M. James Lorenz (“Standing Order”), and the undersigned Magistrate Judge’s Chambers 27 Rules (“Chambers Rules”), all of which are posted on this District’s website. 28 /// 1 Pleadings 2 2. Any motion to join other parties, to amend the pleadings, or to file additional 3 pleadings shall be filed no later than May 15, 2023. 4 Discovery 5 3. All discovery shall be completed by all Parties no later than 6 October 17, 2023. “Completed” means that all discovery under Rules 30-36, and 7 discovery subpoenas under Rule 45,1 must be initiated a sufficient period of time in 8 advance of the cut-off date, so that it may be completed by the cut-off date, taking into 9 account the times for service, notice and response. Counsel shall promptly and in good 10 faith meet and confer with regard to all discovery disputes in compliance with Local 11 Rule 26.1(a). Counsel shall make every effort to resolve all disputes without court 12 intervention through the meet and confer process. Discovery disputes must be brought to 13 the Court’s attention in the time and manner required by § V of Judge Burkhardt’s Civil 14 Chambers Rules. All discovery disputes must be raised within 30 calendar days of the 15 service of an objection, answer, or response that becomes the subject of dispute, or the 16 passage of a discovery due date without response or production, and only after counsel 17 (and any unrepresented parties) have met and conferred to resolve the dispute. See J. 18 Burkhardt Civ. Chambers R. § V. A failure to comply in this regard will result in 19 waiver. Absent an order of the court, no stipulation to alter or extend the time to 20 comply with this provision will be recognized by the court. 21 4. No later than August 22, 2023, the Parties shall designate in writing their 22 respective experts related to the merits of the case. The Parties must identify any person 23 who may be used at trial to present evidence pursuant to Rules 702, 703 or 705 of the 24 Federal Rules of Evidence. This requirement is not limited to retained experts. The written 25 designations shall include the name, address and telephone number of each expert and a 26 reasonable summary of the testimony the expert is expected to provide. The list shall also 27

28 1 include the normal rates the expert charges for deposition and trial testimony. 2 5. The Parties shall exchange their respective rebuttal experts related to the 3 merits of the case by September 19, 2023. 4 6. Each party shall comply with Rule 26(a)(2)(A) and (B) disclosure provisions 5 related to their merits experts by August 22, 2023. This disclosure requirement applies to 6 all persons retained or specially employed to provide expert testimony, or whose duties as 7 a party’s employee regularly involve giving expert testimony. Except as provided in the 8 paragraph below, any party that fails to make these disclosures shall not, absent 9 substantial justification, be permitted to use the undisclosed evidence or testimony at 10 any hearing or at trial. In addition, the court may impose sanctions as permitted by 11 Rule 37(c). 12 7. No later than September 19, 2023, the Parties shall supplement their 13 disclosures regarding contradictory or rebuttal evidence under Rule 26(a)(2)(D) related to 14 their merits experts. 15 8. Failure to comply with this section or any other discovery order of the court 16 may result in Rule 37 sanctions, including preclusion of expert or other designated 17 evidence. 18 Motion Briefing 19 9. Except for motions in limine, all pretrial motions must be filed no later than 20 November 14, 2023. As provided herein and in the Standing Order, certain motions must 21 be filed well before this date. 22 10. Counsel for the moving party must obtain a motion hearing date from the law 23 clerk of the judge who will hear the motion. The period of time between the date of 24 requesting a motion date and the hearing date typically exceeds 30 days. Failure to make 25 a timely request for a motion date may result in the motion not being heard. 26 11. Motion briefing must comply with all applicable Rules, Local Rules, Standing 27 Order, Chambers Rules and court orders. 28 /// 1 Mandatory Settlement Conference 2 12. A Mandatory Settlement Conference (“MSC”) will be held by video 3 conference2 on November 1, 2023 at 1:45 PM before Magistrate Judge Jill L. 4 Burkhardt. Mandatory directions for participating in the MSC by video conference 5 are attached hereto. The purpose of the MSC is to permit an informal, candid discussion 6 between the attorneys, parties, and the settlement judge of every aspect of the lawsuit in an 7 effort to achieve a mediated resolution of the case. All MSC discussions will be off the 8 record, privileged, and confidential. See CivLR 16.3(h). 9 Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 16.3, all party representatives and claims adjusters for 10 insured defendants with full and unlimited authority3 to negotiate and enter into a binding 11 settlement, as well as the principal attorney(s) responsible for the litigation, must be present 12 and legally and factually prepared to discuss and resolve the case at the MSC. In the case 13 of an entity, an authorized representative of the entity who is not retained outside counsel 14 must be present and must have discretionary authority to commit the entity to pay an 15 amount up to the amount of the Plaintiff’s prayer (excluding punitive damages prayers). 16 17

18 2 If any party believes the MSC is more likely to be successful if conducted in-person, 19 that party shall meet and confer on the issue with the other parties. After meeting and conferring, and no later than 60 days before the MSC, the Parties shall leave a joint 20 voicemail with chambers at (619) 557-6624 indicating which of the Parties requests an in- 21 person MSC. In the voicemail, the Parties shall leave three mutually available dates for a 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). The person needs to have “unfettered discretion and authority” to change the settlement position of a party. Pitman v. Brinker Int’l., Inc., 216 F.R.D. 481, 26 485–86 (D. Ariz. 2003). The purpose of requiring a person with unlimited settlement 27 authority to attend the conference includes that the person’s view of the case may be altered during the face to face conference. Id. at 486. A limited or a sum certain of authority is 28 1 The purpose of this requirement is to have representatives present who can settle the case 2 during the course of the conference without consulting a superior.

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

Related

Pitman v. Brinker International, Inc.
216 F.R.D. 481 (D. Arizona, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Pipich v. O'Reilly Auto Enterprises, LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pipich-v-oreilly-auto-enterprises-llc-casd-2023.