(PS) Harrell v. Puckett

District Court, E.D. California·Decided March 28, 2025·No. 2:23-cv-01448·Unknown

Opinion

PETER T. HARRELL, No. 2:23-CV-1448-DC-DMC Plaintiff, v. ORDER ROBERT PUCKETT, SR., et al., Defendants. Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, brings this civil action. This court conducted a scheduling conference on March 26, 2025. Plaintiff failed to appear1. Attorney Michael Malone, Esq., appeared on behalf of all named Defendants except Bruce’s Towing/Radiator & Dismantling. Pursuant to Rule 16(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court issues this scheduling order. All named defendants except Bruce’s Towing/Radiator & Dismantling have been served as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5. Plaintiff is ordered to effect service on Bruce’s towing within 30 days of this order. / / /

1 By separate order the Court will direct Plaintiff to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed for his failure to participate in the preparation of a join scheduling report and appear at the scheduling conference. The Court will also set an order to show cause hearing separately. II. JOINDER OF ADDITIONAL PARTIES / AMENDMENT OF PLEADINGS Defendants do not anticipate the joinder of additional parties or amendment of the pleadings. No further joinder of parties or amendments to pleadings is permitted without leave of court, good cause having been shown. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b); Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 27 604 (9th Cir. 1992). The parties are advised that the filing of motions and/or stipulations requesting leave to amend the pleadings does not imply good cause to modify the existing schedule. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 (b)(4); see also Johnson, 975 F. 2d at 609. Moreover, any amendment requested under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) must not be: (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). Discovery matters that do not implicate the schedule of the case are referred to the assigned magistrate judge, who will hear all discovery disputes subject to his or her procedures. (The assigned magistrate judge’s initials follow the district judge’s initials next to the case number.) All discovery related filings must include the words “DISCOVERY MATTER” in the caption to ensure proper routing. Do not direct delivery of courtesy copies of these documents to the district judge. Counsel are directed to contact the magistrate judge’s courtroom deputy clerk to schedule discovery matters for hearing. All motions to compel discovery must be noticed on the assigned magistrate judge’s calendar in accordance with the local rules of this court and the magistrate judge’s own procedures. The written ruling of the assigned magistrate judge shall be final, subject to modification by the district court only where it has been shown that the magistrate judge’s order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). Pursuant to Local Rule 303, any party may file and serve a “Request for Reconsideration by the District Court of Magistrate Judge’s Ruling.” See L.R. 303(c). The requesting party must file and serve any such request within fourteen (14) days of service of a written ruling. L.R. 303(b). The request must specify which portions of the ruling are clearly erroneous or contrary to law and the basis for that contention with supporting points and authorities. L.R. 303(c). In addition, the assigned magistrate judge reviews proposed discovery phase protective orders sought by the parties pursuant to Local Rule 141.1. However, any requests to seal or redact in connection with trial or motions to be resolved by Judge Coggins must be directed to Judge Coggins and comply with her Standing Order and Local Rules 140 and 141. A. Rule 26(a) Initial Disclosures The parties shall serve their initial disclosures pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 26(a)(1) no later than April 4, 2025. Any parties served or joined after the issuance of this scheduling order shall “make the initial disclosures within 30 days after being served or joined,” as provided by Rule 26(a)(1)(D). B. Fact Discovery All fact discovery shall be completed2 no later than January 23, 2026. C. Expert Discovery Disclosures of expert witnesses, if any, must be made pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(A), (B) and (C), and shall include all information required thereunder. Each expert witness must be fully prepared to be examined on all subjects and opinions included in the disclosures. Failure to comply with these requirements may result in the imposition of appropriate sanctions, including the preclusion of the expert’s testimony, or of other evidence offered through the expert. The parties shall disclose initial experts and produce reports in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) by no later than February 25, 2026. With regard to expert testimony intended solely for rebuttal, those experts shall be disclosed and reports produced in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) on or before March 16, 2026. All expert discovery shall be completed no later than May 8, 2026.

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

(PS) Harrell v. Puckett, (E.D. Cal. 2025).

(PS) Harrell v. Puckett ((PS) Harrell v. Puckett) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

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